Apr/01
2012
2012
Why We Need A Health Mandate: Insurance Companies Operate With Impunity
Maybe the current law isn't the right law but it's better than *no* law at all because the health insurance industry needs to know that someone somewhere is watching them. And they need this because they're fucking assholes.
Not that anyone can really argue this premise but my personal evidence:
- refusing to pay for the medication prescribed by my doctor because they insist there's a cheaper version I should take
- sending me harassing phone calls and emails demanding to know if the recent MRI's have had for a bad knee was due to a car accident (no, I'm just getting old, thanks)
- several years of repeatedly harassing me to know if anyone in my family was covered by someone else (no, no and no)
- denying to pay for treatment recommended by my doctor in favor of older and more drastic surgery (again they know better than my doctor AND a second opinion)
It goes on. I don't get it. It's not like I have a history of medical visits that would label me a hypochondriac. I certainly don't abuse the system, (even though the whole notion of a 'deductible' where you have to fork over for the first X amount of coverage might encourage something like that.) Nope I'm the ordinary type, I see my GP twice a year for a specific condition and maybe once or twice a year (maybe) a specialist for this thing I busted or that thing I bruised badly. Same goes for my family. Thus I resent the constant badgering from my insurance company looking for a way out of having to pay something or anything in return for the premiums they receive.
But now there's bigger insult. After five years of coverage my insurance company is demanding proof that anyone is related to me. I must, within a month, provide birth certificates for my kids and a copy of my marriage license or they'll stop covering my family.
FUCKING REALLY?
When I signed up I gave them everyone's Social Security numbers, plenty damn proof enough to verify who they were, but now BCBS is doing anything they possibly can to delay, defer, or deny coverage to my family. Luckily I have copies of all these documents handy but I can imagine others might not. Especially those who might be close to retirement.
It's bullshit. The insurance companies are evil, run by evil and spend more of my premiums on fighting the job they signed up to do than just fucking doing it. I can't imagine what the cost of managing, filing, copying, logging all this paperwork will be, but I'm willing to bet my coverage that it's going to be far more than just paying for the services they said they'd cover.
So Fuck You to all the insurance companies out there. I know you're fucking salivating in the hopes that the healthcare mandate will be struck down, but we're on to you motherfuckers. We're on to you.
7 comments
Comment from: odessa [Member] 
I consider myself really lucky to have a health care plan (an HMO of sorts) that doesn't suck. They have never denied a test or a referral. And now I don't need my GP to do referrals, I can self refer.
However, my plan does have issues with prescriptions. Years ago I decided I would pay out of pocket for a name brand after my pharmacist told me the insurance were only going to approve a "sub-generic". Then more recently, my GP got a "red frownie face" on his computer when I gave him the name of the drug another doctor prescribed. Insurance covers it, but with a $50 co-pay. I previously tried the cheaper alternative, stopped taking it after 6 months and told GP I'd rather be dead than deal with the side effects.
I agree something needs to done with health care overall. My mother got refused by plan after plan after my father retired and subsequently went on Medicare because she has a pre-existing condition. Thankfully now she is on Medicare (which has its own set of stupidity and deserves a post of its own).
All and all I don't mind paying out of pocket or paying considerably more for certain things that matter to me. Did the drug my GP prescribed treat the condition for which it was prescribed? Sure. But I felt like crap otherwise. Paying $50 a month to treat my condition and feel less like crap is worth it.
I can afford it now, but I may not be able to when I retire. However, when I retire, perhaps it won't matter if I live in a fog so it won't matter if I take a crappy generic.
However, my plan does have issues with prescriptions. Years ago I decided I would pay out of pocket for a name brand after my pharmacist told me the insurance were only going to approve a "sub-generic". Then more recently, my GP got a "red frownie face" on his computer when I gave him the name of the drug another doctor prescribed. Insurance covers it, but with a $50 co-pay. I previously tried the cheaper alternative, stopped taking it after 6 months and told GP I'd rather be dead than deal with the side effects.
I agree something needs to done with health care overall. My mother got refused by plan after plan after my father retired and subsequently went on Medicare because she has a pre-existing condition. Thankfully now she is on Medicare (which has its own set of stupidity and deserves a post of its own).
All and all I don't mind paying out of pocket or paying considerably more for certain things that matter to me. Did the drug my GP prescribed treat the condition for which it was prescribed? Sure. But I felt like crap otherwise. Paying $50 a month to treat my condition and feel less like crap is worth it.
I can afford it now, but I may not be able to when I retire. However, when I retire, perhaps it won't matter if I live in a fog so it won't matter if I take a crappy generic.
04/01/12 @ 09:57
Comment from: Ryan [Visitor]
Someone care explain to me why your country is so dead-set against Universal Healthcare?
04/01/12 @ 21:11
Comment from: u235 [Member]
Because it would mean lower profit and greater oversight for medical-industry businesses. In the US it's the businesses that run government, not the people.
04/01/12 @ 21:22
Comment from: odessa [Member]
We need reform. Fair insurance needs to be available to all. However, I believe it is unconstitutional to force people to buy into a universal plan. But I also believe it is unconstitutional to make me pay for someone who opts out of health care. If you make a choice to not buy into health care, then you need to be willing to live with with that choice.
Also, universal health care could be the end of our choices - in other words forced use of generic drugs because they are cheaper. Also, if it regulates alternative medicine, it might mean then end of my choice of alternative medicine providers. I pay for them out of my own pocket and I don't need big brother getting in my business.
If we in the US are destined to wind up with a type of universal health care, I fear that it will be as dysfunctional as Medicare, Workers Comp or the VA. No thanks.
Also, universal health care could be the end of our choices - in other words forced use of generic drugs because they are cheaper. Also, if it regulates alternative medicine, it might mean then end of my choice of alternative medicine providers. I pay for them out of my own pocket and I don't need big brother getting in my business.
If we in the US are destined to wind up with a type of universal health care, I fear that it will be as dysfunctional as Medicare, Workers Comp or the VA. No thanks.
04/01/12 @ 23:15
Comment from: Roulette [Member]
It's not unconstitutional to force someone to buy something. But it may be unconstitutional to do it the way they did. Maybe. It's also not unconstitutional to force you to pay for others. That's the basic nature of taxation. It is illegal for doctors to refuse to treat a patient though.
All of this is just an attempt to get health care costs under control. You can get the same treatment in other countries for far less, which means the problem isn't the cost of care, it's the system around them. Most western countries has some form of single payer. Clearly that won't work when the right is dead set against it. So, the left wrote up this half-assed plan to try to relieve the stress. If it gets struck down, the entire act goes out the window because it loses the portion designed to fund the rest of the bill. And the next time they go around, the left will go all the way for single payer, which will shut down most of the insurance industry and put the entire medical field under regulation. It'll have to bide it's time a little, but if they find the right opportunity, it'll get through congress and that will be all she wrote. So really, the right should be careful what it wishes for.
Oh, and just because it's a pet peeve of mine, please remember the following:
“By definition, 'alternative medicine' has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. You know what they call 'alternative medicine' that’s been proved to work? Medicine.”
All of this is just an attempt to get health care costs under control. You can get the same treatment in other countries for far less, which means the problem isn't the cost of care, it's the system around them. Most western countries has some form of single payer. Clearly that won't work when the right is dead set against it. So, the left wrote up this half-assed plan to try to relieve the stress. If it gets struck down, the entire act goes out the window because it loses the portion designed to fund the rest of the bill. And the next time they go around, the left will go all the way for single payer, which will shut down most of the insurance industry and put the entire medical field under regulation. It'll have to bide it's time a little, but if they find the right opportunity, it'll get through congress and that will be all she wrote. So really, the right should be careful what it wishes for.
Oh, and just because it's a pet peeve of mine, please remember the following:
“By definition, 'alternative medicine' has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. You know what they call 'alternative medicine' that’s been proved to work? Medicine.”
04/03/12 @ 06:36
Comment from: odessa [Member]
I may be splitting hairs here, but it is legal for a doctor to refuse to treat a patient. They do it all the time. They refuse to take new patients, refuse the indigent or they "fire" patients they feel are "non-compliant". They may be required to provide life saving care, however.
Unfortunately we are caught in proverbial Catch 22. The current system sucks for most. Many of the provisions of the current proposal suck, too. The systems that government currently oversee are fraught with waste and inefficiency and don't give me a warm fuzzy over the prospect of anything resembling universal health care. I fear we are all screwed.
Unfortunately we are caught in proverbial Catch 22. The current system sucks for most. Many of the provisions of the current proposal suck, too. The systems that government currently oversee are fraught with waste and inefficiency and don't give me a warm fuzzy over the prospect of anything resembling universal health care. I fear we are all screwed.
04/03/12 @ 17:58
Comment from: u235 [Member]
I'm past fear. I'm into acceptance. We *are* all screwed. Unless we're filthy fucking rich... and see what that got Michael Jackson anyway.
04/03/12 @ 20:26
Comment feed for this post