I think whoever came up with "pre-existing conditions" should be arrested and charged

[Canuckistanian]

With what, you say? With fraud, embezzlement, mail fraud, extortion, and yes, even manslaughter.

Look, insurance is insurance. Every insurance claim condition should be anticipated and priced accordingly. Insurance companies employ mathematicians and accountants for JUST THAT PURPOSE.

Are you a lead foot driver with lots of accidents? You're charged more. Live in a flood-prone area? Your premiums increase.

But to DENY insurance coverage FOR LIFE because you've had a serious prior claim? That's.... criminal. THERE REALLY IS NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT.

And yet, most Americans (and America is the ONLY country with such a concept) ACCEPT this as a "reality". I find this bizarre.

Pardon me, but I'm Canadian and I've just heard too many people say "Well, I have a pre-existing condition and there's NOTHING I can do".

If I were American, getting RID of "pre-existing conditions" would be my FIRST FUCKING PRIORITY.

Thank you for listening.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Americans lie down like lambs and don't fight

I can't believe how Americans have put up with this for so long?

[Canuckistanian]

3. Like I've said before

There'll be no American revolution unless their cable TV gets cut off.

Then, look out.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. I'd gladly cut it off

[Berserker]

2. Insurance companies

are the scum of the fucking earth. I work with them EVERY DAY.
Nothing says Freedom like DENYING CLAIMS. Fuckum where they breath.
Berserker.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

4. good for you but you do not have to carry - the red states along

they are a burden i do not wish to bear, lincoln was wrong, and it's time to divorce.

[realisticphish]

6. I'm 24, and have already had malignant melanoma

it's only because my parents' insurance company voluntarily extended their coverage that I still have insurance. If I let it lapse, it's possible that I might never get insurance again (or at least have to pay astronomical fees for gov't benefits, since I will probably have a state job)

[pnwmom]

8. You won't have to pay astronomical fees under the Obama plan. It won't be cheap,

but it won't be astronomical. The whole point was to make it possible so that someone with a serious history, like yours, would still be able to get insurance.

OTOH, don't let your parents policy lapse! Sounds like a good one!

[realisticphish]

11. right

except it runs out the day I turn 26, next october. But by then, I should (hopefully) have a professional job in my field. My mother is a teacher, and we have United Healthcare. They've actually been surprisingly flexible.

One of my friends is working at Kroger (a midwest grocery store) with her dual masters degrees... she has COBRA just to maintain coverage. She has a few pre-existing conditions, though not ones as major as mine, and she's afraid of lapsing

[pnwmom]

22. Hopefully you'll have a professional job then, with insurance. But if you don't,

under Obama's plan you will be able to buy from a selection of policies that will NOT be able to charge you a higher premium because of your health history. But you WILL get a lower than average premium simply because of your age.

Good luck! I know how serious melanoma is; no young person should have to go through what you've been through.

[realisticphish]

24. i was insanely lucky

I'm normally a "let it go" person, to a fault, but I decided to check on a spot on my arm... it looked benign, but it turned out to be malignant. It hadn't gotten to the bloodstream yet, so the biopsy plus an extra tissue removal, just to be sure, got the whole thing. Now I just get to smell like 50 spf sunscreen every day for the rest of my life...

[pnwmom]

25. You were as lucky as possible for someone with your condition.

Thanks to catching this one, you'll be far more careful the rest of your life -- a different mole in a different time might have gone too far. And now you won't let that happen. I'm so happy for you.

By the way, did they tell you about wearing hats, too? Also, good sunglasses? Besides the other obvious places, you need to protect your scalp AND your eyes. Be well!

Your doctor probably already gave you a brochure, but in case s/he didn't -- we've ordered stuff through this place before. (We're a bunch of palefaces -- definitely at risk.)

http://www.sunprecautions.com/

[realisticphish]

26. oh, yes

I wear sunglasses, anyway, because I hate the sun (which is one reason that this whole thing pisses me off)

The hat, depends on the situation. Day-to-day, not usually, but if I'm going to be outside all day, most definitely

[pnwmom]

27. This salon.com writer is why I just thought of hats.

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/08/13/mary_beth_cancer/index.html

"I've been applying industrial grade sunscreen to my skin, a vampire's ideal pigment, most of my life. But nobody ever said that just walking around under the sky would make the top of my head vulnerable, that I ought to have been wearing hats this whole time. Skin cancer of the scalp is one of the deadliest forms of melanoma. It has nearly double the rate of fatality as cancers elsewhere on the skin. If it is advanced, the five-year survival rate is slim. Oh well, I always liked a challenge".

[realisticphish]

28. my grandfather

got melanoma on the tips of his ears... so I'm always careful there, because its somewhere you forget about.

The problem with hats is that there are many situations where it's just not ok to wear a hat (ah, for the days of fedoras...)

[pnwmom]

30. My brother wears a baseball cap almost constantly. Won't help your ears, though.

And you're right, hats aren't very cool, especially for men. Ugh.

Did you see the catalogue I mentioned in an earlier post? I edited it in so you might have missed it. But probably you've already heard about the SPF clothes.

[realisticphish]

31. actually, no I hadn't

though sunscreen is now as part of my morning routine as deodorant :)

I have a feeling that the increased rate of fatality has something to do with the difficulty of identification (though that's a total guess). Unless you're bald, its hard to see what's going on up there.

[pnwmom]

35. Your theory makes sense to me. Probably most on the scalp aren't discovered

in time. Now I'm starting to feel paranoid!

[tblue37]

32. The new health care law lets parents keep kids on until they turn 27.

At least I am pretty sure that is how it works.

[realisticphish]

34. last I heard, it was 26

but I would be happy to have an extra buffer year in this economy...

[tblue37]

42. This whole next year you are 26, and thus still covered.

You can stay on it up to and including age 26. Until your 27th birthday, you remain 26. Here is a page that details the law's provisions. I have also quoted what the page says about this issue.

http://www.lac.org/index.php/lac/378

"Allow adult children to remain on their parents’ insurance until their 27th birthday."

I looked into it because my sister's daughter turned 26 in March and has no job, so they were worrying about her, since she was traveling abroad.

I hope this info helps ease some of your difficulties this year!

[realisticphish]

43. I turn 25 this October

so I do get two more years... handy dandy :)

[Canuckistanian]

9. You're what I'm talking about

Just keep that money flowing to the insurance companies OR ELSE. They keep records. They KNOW who's been sick, for any reason, and they'll use it against you.

Intelligence agencies should study their methods.

[pnwmom]

7. It's not that simple, unfortunately. Some pre-existing conditions are much higher

in expense than living in a flood-prone area -- but, unlike someone who could buy a house elsewhere, you can't move away from your own body. And if "every insurance claim condition was anticipated and priced accordingly" then millions of people with high-cost conditions or "bad genes" wouldn't be able to afford their insurance anyway.

[Canuckistanian]

10. But Canada has no such concept

And STILL we're able to provide ALL CITIZENS with cradle-to-grave medical coverage at a price CHEAPER than the American system.

It's the PROFIT MOTIVE that makes it so expensive.

Insurance companies cut their risks to the bone and BEYOND to maintain coverage and STILL deliver a big paycheck to the executives and shareholders.

We HAVE NO executives to maintain. NO quarterly profit statements. NO shareholder dividends.

Get it now?

[realisticphish]

12. !!!

but I've always heard that canadians flock in droves to America to get health care! Are you trying to tell me that right wing sources LIE??!??!?!

[Canuckistanian]

14. Like a rug.

I find it interesting that America could have had single-payer back in the 1960s as we did.

But through the efforts of RONALD REAGAN, with a futuristic phonograph record message, decried single-payer as "Socialized Medicine".


His ghost haunts us still.

[realisticphish]

17. and even half-assed systems like Hawaii

seem to work, and have worked for 50 years, yet "ALL THAT SOCIALISM CRAP NEVER WORKS"

[pnwmom]

29. I get it. I'd love to have Canada's system. I'm just saying it's not based on

charging people based on what their expected individual costs will be, as your previous post implied.

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. I want to go to Canuckistanian! Your post is perfect!

You described it perfectly. And I agree with your punishments. When they deny someone care, they are murdering them for money, plain and simple. What kind of soulless creatures could even participate or support true death camps, worse than the Nazis, because these twisted people are doing it purely for money. What Hitler did was ideology and a demented mind, but what insurance executives do is cold blooded murder, purely for money, one of the most vile and soulless motives for profiting off of another's demise.

How can anyone of faith support health insurance executives? How can anyone with any heart at all support the strong over the weak? What kind of people are they?

BTW, I'm a fellow Canuck, MQC and sooo proud of that. I'm thinking of going back...

[Canuckistanian]

15. Why, thank you

I calls 'em as I see 'em.

BTW, where are you from in Canada?

[AnArmyVeteran]

18. Montreal... Have lots of Toronto friends...

[Canuckistanian]

20. Toronto is my home town

But I live near Ottawa now.

[AnArmyVeteran]

23. I've skied at Mont Tremblant a few times. Love low altitude skiing.

But I also love the Rockies...

[AnArmyVeteran]

41. I love Toronto. It was the cleanest town I've ever seen.

And they have fantastic public transportation.

[Cherchez la Femme]

21. "cold blooded murder"

Seconded! :applause:

[sohndrsmith]

16. I hate to do this, but I'm going to make you even more angry: the "Prudent Person Standard":

Basically, you can be denied coverage or treatment based on any assumed (per the subjective opinion of one's potential insurer) sign, symptom or problem may be deemed as a pre-existing condition - ***EVEN without a doctor's diagnosis!*** or consideration that one's doctor did not consider that it qualified for a formal diagnosis.

I've also wracked my brain over the devastating results people suffer through when there are MISdiagnoses that lead to denial of coverage as a PEC, even if formally found by medical professionals as erroneous or no evidence is ever found to support the diagnosis.

Basically, this clause allows the insurer - not physicians - to determine health status of any potential insured. And you'd better bet insurers are not clinically, much less financially objective. The people who need coverage and treatment the most are the least likely to get it. It's just barbaric.

If you're willing to accept the probability of extreme frustration, even nightmares, read on:
------

The Pre-Existing Condition and Prudent Person Standard Definition:

"In general, pre-existing conditions are medical conditions or other health problems that existed before the date of enrollment in an individual policy. However, the exact definition of pre-existing condition varies by state.

Some states use an objective standard allowing only those conditions for which someone actually received medical advice, diagnosis, care or treatment prior to enrollment to be counted as pre-existing.

Most states use a broader, prudent person standard, which also includes conditions that were never diagnosed, but which exhibited symptoms for which an ordinary prudent person would have sought medical advice, care or treatment.

In many states, health problems disclosed at the time of application may be permanently excluded from coverage by an amendment to the individual health insurance contract called an elimination rider. Once coverage begins, a consumer who makes claims under the policy may be investigated to see whether the health problem was pre-existing. In many states, it is not necessary for a health condition to have been diagnosed prior to the purchase of coverage for it to be considered pre-existing.

Depending on state law, insurers can look back months or years prior to the policys purchase for evidence of a pre-existing condition. This process is sometimes called post-claims underwriting. In most states, the maximum pre-existing condition exclusion period constitutes a limit on post-claims underwriting." *

*NOTE: all italics, boldface and underlining emphasis is mine.
Link:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=7&ind=355

[Canuckistanian]

19. Yes, well....

Would a "prudent person" allow this condition to continue without protest?

Funny how "prudent persons" are the ones that have to conform, obey and submit to be considered "lawful".

Thanks for reinforcing my point so eloquently.

[Mimosa]

38. That's horrid! n/t

[truedelphi]

33. Have you seen "Capitalism: A Love Story" Yet? You'll

Really like the scene when Michael Moore's animated Jesus has a reaction to the person who says the words "Pre-existing condition."

Great scene. Worth watching the movie just for that small segue.

[Angry Dragon]

36. Just watched that Sunday night

[Canuckistanian]

45. I haven't seen it yet

But that sounds interesting.

I'd like to see Jesus' reactions to a WHOLE BUNCH of RW dumbfuckery.

[Mimosa]

37. Why didn't Congress outlaw denying insurance because of pre-existing conditions?

They could have done it but they didn't except for children. That certainly doesn't help us 40 or 50 year olds.

[WillowTree]

39. They did, but that doesn't go into effect until 2014.

[Mimosa]

40. I know that.

And it means the BC/BS rep was able to laugh at me when I called last week seeing if I could somehow improve my partner's and my $895 a month policies which include $10,000 ann deductible, $1000 deductible before any Rxs are covered.

I was told I can't change anything because if we dropped any part of our current policies BC/BS would refuse to accept us for insurance because of pre-existing fairly minor conditions.

[cascadiance]

44. I think BP should be billed for THEIR pre-existing conditions in the BP mess...

And since they've already proven (BY CHOICE IN THEIR CASE) that they have inherent habits to lie, cheat, steal, and disobey regulatory procedures, they should be billed MORE since they've already shown themselves to be a proven risk! How come we have to pay for our increased risk and they don't? Maybe because they are more rich and powerful than we are?