Being a Woman is Not a Pre-Existing Condition

posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/30/2009 @ 11:21am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (48)

Subscribe Now

This post was written by Nation intern and freelance writer Fernanda Diaz.

One of the most appalling practices of the health insurance industry is to deny women coverage because of pregnancy, rape, domestic abuse or HIV medication--all of which have been discriminatorily labeled "pre-existing conditions" by some insurers. As the debate heats up over legislation about the "pre-existing condition" clause in many insurance programs, it's crucial to remind Congress that being a woman is not a pre-existing condition.

The story of Christina Turner, uncovered by The Huffington Post Investigative Fund, reflects the staggering injustice that can result from lack of regulation of the grounds on which companies can deny coverage. Turner's tale is not uncommon: she is a rape victim who was given anti-AIDS medicine after her sexual assault and was later denied coverage solely because of this preventative measure--insurers claimed that the HIV medication "raised too many health questions." The company announced it might re-consider if, in three or more years, she could prove that she was AIDS free.

The less extreme cases are even more surprising. Under a federal law known as HIPAA, pregnancy is not allowed to be counted as a pre-existing condition--however, there are many loopholes, and pregnant women seeking individual plans or with slight abnormalities can be rejected despite this statute.

Health insurance companies take advantage of the American public simply because they can. Government needs to tell them to cease and desist with these discriminatory practices. The current effort to overhaul the healthcare industry must not neglect this institutionalized sexism, and you can help by calling on Congress to investigate these cases. Please contact your elected reps and ask them to consider these abuses and demand their redress as Congress continues to craft and debate new healthcare legislation for the American public.

Comments (48)

Interested to see if you get any right-wing attacks on this thread, Peter....given the Republicans have said they'd support a "no denial due to pre-conditions" reform.

Likely, they'll want to drag it off topic.

Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:28am
#1734 on a list of 345,000 reasons why insurance companies cannot be trusted.

thanks again, peter.....keep on keepin' on!

(time to go harvest!!!!!!!)

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 11:53am
The story of Christina Turner, uncovered by The Huffington Post Investigative Fund, reflects the staggering injustice that can result from lack of regulation of the grounds on which companies can deny coverage.

Once again, if this is such a problem why isn't it already being addressed at the state level where these plans must by approved by each States Insurance Commissioner?

All it takes is for these Insurance commissioners to require that the plans be amended to reflect this change.

IT DOES NOT REQUIRE CONGRESS.

This is just another example of the left trying to insert the Federal govt into EVERYTHING.

Peter, when are you and the rest of the left going to just be honest and state that you want to eliminate state govts?

Then you can have the marxist control that you all long for.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 12:08pm
And how, pray tell, does the current "reform" bill prevent this appalling discrimination? Not a rhetorical Q. Does anyone know what, if anything, the current bill provides to prevent this?

Posted by sloper at 10/30/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 12:08pm

And as always, keep in mind that Larry considers just about all domestic policy since Roosevelt....

Teddy that is (and his damn Communist "clean food" and "clean drugs" and Stalinist "trust busting") to be "marxism."

Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 1:22pm
This is the function of insurance regulation: to decide what is allowed as an underwriting criterion and what isn't. For example, life insurance companies can charge more for someone who smokes but (I'm guessing here, can anybody in the insurance business confirm it?) can't charge more based on ethnicity, even if it were correlated with shorter lifespan.

The people who can't find (or can't afford) health insurance in the market will then, presumably, be in the government insurance plan, much the same way that many homeowners in New Orleans ended up with federal flood insurance.

Posted by Mistral at 10/30/2009 @ 2:27pm
This is the function of insurance regulation: to decide what is allowed as an underwriting criterion and what isn't. For example, life insurance companies can charge more for someone who smokes but (I'm guessing here, can anybody in the insurance business confirm it?) can't charge more based on ethnicity, even if it were correlated with shorter lifespan.

The people who can't find (or can't afford) health insurance in the market will then, presumably, be in the government insurance plan, much the same way that many homeowners in New Orleans ended up with federal flood insurance.

Posted by Mistral at 10/30/2009 @ 2:27pm

You are correct on the life insurance underwriting. Ethnicity cannot be used in underwriting.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 2:30pm
Glad I wear boots since the cow fecal matter is getting so deep in the socialist marxist state healthcare.

No matter that the death panels, covered illiegal immigrants, state paid abortions, and rationing of healthcare are still dominate social engineering features of the plan, just ignore those dehumanizing and anti-american aspects of what the Obamanation that makes desolation and Demoncrats want for American citizens!

Posted by BigPasture at 10/30/2009 @ 3:46pm
"This is just another example of the left trying to insert the Federal govt into EVERYTHING"

and what if the states don't do anything, anti? should citizens of that state just......move to another state?

clearly the states HAVEN'T done anything, so this begs the question: if the states don't, then who will?

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 5:39pm
and what if the states don't do anything, anti? should citizens of that state just......move to another state?

clearly the states HAVEN'T done anything, so this begs the question: if the states don't, then who will?

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 5:39pm

So, because a state doesn't do their job on an issue, they surrender their authority to the Federal govt?

Why have states then? Every time someone feels the state isn't doing everything they're supposed to do, does that mean they should be forced to surrender their constitutional authority?

Right now, it is each state insurance commissioner who carries out state law. CA has an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature and a RINO Governor who is more Democrat than some Democrats. NY, Michigan, Washington, Oregon, Delaware, Mass, Vermont, Pennsyl, etc, etc, all strong Dem control. Should be easy to rectify.

They already change insurance law every year. What could possibly stop this?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 5:54pm
It's despicable. No other element in the U.S. would be allowed to operate that way without severe legal consequences. There is no difference between an insurers risk, and an employer hiring someone who has HIV or is pregnant, who then stands to lose money if that person passes away or leaves after the company makes an investment in their training etc. It is a huge double standard and a breach of equal protection at it's very core.

Posted by Milhaus at 10/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
"So, because a state doesn't do their job on an issue, they surrender their authority to the Federal govt?"

yes

what do you expect women do in, say, california? just wait and hope that their lawmakers.....do their job?

and (gee) i wonder why lawmakers in california don't do their job? uh, maybe it's because they receive campaign contributions from.....the insurance industry? no, that never, ever happens.

in anti's mind, women in california should just......leave. just pick up their things, and leave.

antisocialist: stubbornly (and stupidly) beholden to an arcane set of failed principles.

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
mask was right about some right wing freak to come out and defend this. it's really scary.

and what's also so, so strange is that antisocialist is a REVEREND, and he's defending this atrocious reality.

imagine, a reverend defending blatant gender discrimination, on a huge scale, just so he doesn't ever have to waver from his undying support for a set of failed ideological principles.

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 6:11pm
I seriously doubt that anti is a Reverend, he has also been a government defense contractor and who knows what else. Even if he somehow carries the title I would be very surprised if he had an actual pulpit. People who spend time dealing with real problems among real people don't have those kinds of opinions.

Posted by Milhaus at 10/30/2009 @ 6:32pm
'Interested to see if you get any right-wing attacks on this thread, Peter....given the Republicans have said they'd support a "no denial due to pre-conditions" reform.

Likely, they'll want to drag it off topic.'

- "Mask."

'[...] death panels, [...] illegal immigrants [...], [...] abortions, [...] rationing [...] social engineering [...] dehumanizing [...] anti-american [...] Obamanation that [...] desolation [...] Demoncrats.'

- "BigPasture" (edited for clarity and accuracy).

You called it, "Mask"!

I think it's time to ignore "BigPasture," too. This troll is consistently incoherent and seldom provides an illustrative example of anything except incorrigible self-delusion.

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/30/2009 @ 6:49pm
"People who spend time dealing with real problems among real people don't have those kinds of opinions"

that is so true!

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 7:06pm
You are correct on the life insurance underwriting. Ethnicity cannot be used in underwriting. Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 2:30pm |

What about genetic testing....can't say it's because an insured is black, but what if they can spot a sickle cell marker?

Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 7:07pm
I seriously doubt that anti is a Reverend, he has also been a government defense contractor and who knows what else. Even if he somehow carries the title I would be very surprised if he had an actual pulpit. People who spend time dealing with real problems among real people don't have those kinds of opinions.

Posted by Milhaus at 10/30/2009 @ 6:32pm

Your post just shows how little you know about Christianity, at least protestantism.

I haven't seen recent numbers, but when I went into the ministry approx 75% of protestant pastors were working pastors (holding at least one job in addition to pastoring a church).

I've always done it so that the church can use the funds for more urgent needs to help others.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 7:50pm
intern DIAZ: ".....it's crucial to remind Congress that being a woman is not a pre-existing condition."

I don't think anyone crucial, needs to be reminded of something that is so sub-juvenile!

I hope you aren't planning a career in serious journalism.....at mud-slinger MSNBC, definitely!

Posted by Happy at 10/30/2009 @ 8:18pm
"Your post just shows how little you know about Christianity, at least protestantism"

speak for yourself

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 8:34pm
speak for yourself

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 8:34pm

I did.

Tell me Darla, when were you ordained and by whom?

what Seminary did you attend?

And how many years have you taught the Bible?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:01pm
I would like to amplify the excellent question that snowball777 put forth on risk fqactors with genetic markers. Covering known and calculable risks within the general pool falls under the definition of "welfare "more than it does of "insurance," I don't have any reaqlly good answer, and I've studied this type of problem for around 43 years, since I did a college term paper.

The biggest flaw is that mandating tht everyone buy insurance (borrowed from the fascist economic model,) appears to be unconstitutional. A fallback or alternate position needs to be looked at.

John D. Froelich

Posted by balataf at 10/31/2009 @ 12:18am
I'm not sure where you get your data, "balataf," but in a specifically German context, I know for a fact that Germans have had universal health care since the 1880s. Their system was originally created under Kaiser Wilhelm the First by his "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, a staunch Protestant monarchist whose aim was to forestall a Marxist revolution. As we know, Germany didn't become fascist until 1933.

It therefore seems grossly inaccurate to me to refer to a universal mandate to buy health insurance as a "fascist economic model." Indeed, it does the opposite of what fascists are known to do, that is, murder the (purportedly) weak people to improve the quality of life of the (purportedly) strong people. The purpose of a universal mandate is to require healthy people to subsidize the health care of sick people. This is how health care costs are brought down. Indeed, without a universal mandate, I fail to see how health care costs can be lowered. The only alternative I see would be communist-style cost controls.

As for your "constitutionality" question, I believe our local expert in the law, "Thrawn," has shown that there is no question that Congress has the constitutional right to enact health care reform.

Posted by JakobFabian at 10/31/2009 @ 06:50am
It has always been an outrage to me that insurance will not pay for birth control, but will pay for Viagra! That says it all don't you think?

Posted by sheila60 at 10/31/2009 @ 07:49am
And how many years have you taught the Bible? Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:01pm |

Which Bible?

Do you read anything from the Acts of Thomas or any other apocrypha to your congregation?

<Jesus said: Blessed is he who was before he came into being. If you become disciples to me and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For you have five trees in Paradise which do not change, either in summer or in winter, and their leaves do not fall. He who knows them shall not taste of death.>

<'Come, O elder of the five members, MIND, IDEA, THOUGHTFULNESS, CONSIDERATION, REASON, communicate with these youths.'>

Or do you accept the decisions of 'bead counters' as the final 'word'?

Posted by snowball777 at 10/31/2009 @ 10:25am
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/31/2009 @ 06:50am

"there is no question that Congress has the constitutional right to enact health care reform."

I completely disagree. Obama himself has agreed, with regret I might add, that the COTUS is a LIMITOR of governement, not an enabler.

Oh, wait, you're right, if I read the COTUS the way you do, I see health care reform right under torture and preemptive invasion...

Posted by freiheit1 at 10/31/2009 @ 3:49pm
<i>Posted by freiheit1 at 10/31/2009 @ 3:49pm</i>

All right; so how does Congressionally-enacted health-care reform violate the Constitution?

Posted by Thrawn at 10/31/2009 @ 5:04pm
Posted by snowball777 at 10/31/2009 @ 10:25am

Of course I do not read any of the apocrypha to my congregation.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 6:59pm
All right; so how does Congressionally-enacted health-care reform violate the Constitution?

Posted by Thrawn at 10/31/2009 @ 5:04pm

Still trying to defend the indefensible?

The Federal govt has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONTROL HEALTHCARE SERVICES.

We need to tar and feather every member of Congress that supports this marxist attempt to take over our country from the people.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 7:01pm
Uh Anti, easy for you to say, just saying.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/31/2009 @ 7:37pm
ObamaCare promises to make medicine cheaper by making it costlier. Case in point: The Senate Finance Committee proposes a brand-new tax on medical devices.

Manufacturers of pacemakers, stents, heart valves, artificial hips, motorized wheelchairs, and other therapeutic instruments may have lobbied this tax in half. But whether they endure the $40 billion now in the Finance Committee's bill or a $20 billion backroom bargain, ObamaCare foolishly would hike taxes on companies that generate health-advancing, life-saving mechanisms.

This Senate measure would slap a 10-year, $4 billion annual tax on medical implements that retail for $100 or more. "The $4 billion excise tax works out to a surcharge equal to $11,000 per year for every American worker employed by our industry," Braun Medical CEO Carroll Neubauer wrote in October 22's Huffington Post.

This $4 billion yearly tax exceeds the industry's $3.7 billion in venture-capital receipts for 2007 and is more than 40 percent of that year's sector-wide research and development outlay of $9.6 billion.

This tax approximates one-sixth of annual industry profits. How exactly will those who make hearing aids, extended-wear contact lenses, and more manufacture today's products, pay current staffers, hire new employees, and invent tomorrow's cures -- all while this tax devours nearly 17 percent of profits?

Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 11:49pm
"The bill that came out of the committee last week makes absolutely no sense and would be very damaging to Boston Scientific, and the medical device industry as a whole," Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott told journalists October 20. "It would raise costs and lead to significant job losses," he predicted. "It does not address the quality of care, but the political scorecard of savings." Elliott foresees Boston Scientific's tax liability doubling -- between $150 million and $200 million -- triggering layoffs of 1,000 to 2,000 employees.

Money aside, this new tax would jeopardize patients' health and threaten their lives.

"Many of our therapies reduce procedure time, decrease hospitalizations, and empower patients to manage their diseases themselves (insulin pumps, for example)," Medtronic spokesman Steve Cragle tells me.

Insulin pumps offer diabetics major flexibility in what they eat and when. They can exercise without doubling down on carbohydrates. They also inject themselves one tenth as often as those who use old-fashioned needles. In one recent European study, 100 percent of pump users recommended that apparatus, while only 63 percent of syringe-using diabetics endorsed that approach.

Implantable defibrillators are a 98-percent-effective treatment for ventricular arrhythmias that can cause Sudden Cardiac Death, an ailment that kills 233,000 individuals annually. ObamaCare's tax will make defibrillators and pacemakers pricier to acquire and also to refine over time. At the margins, this stupidity increases cardiac deaths.

Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 11:52pm
"The bill that came out of the committee last week makes absolutely no sense and would be very damaging to Boston Scientific, and the medical device industry as a whole," Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott told journalists October 20. "It would raise costs and lead to significant job losses," he predicted. "It does not address the quality of care, but the political scorecard of savings." Elliott foresees Boston Scientific's tax liability doubling -- between $150 million and $200 million -- triggering layoffs of 1,000 to 2,000 employees.

Money aside, this new tax would jeopardize patients' health and threaten their lives.

"Many of our therapies reduce procedure time, decrease hospitalizations, and empower patients to manage their diseases themselves (insulin pumps, for example)," Medtronic spokesman Steve Cragle tells me.

Insulin pumps offer diabetics major flexibility in what they eat and when. They can exercise without doubling down on carbohydrates. They also inject themselves one tenth as often as those who use old-fashioned needles. In one recent European study, 100 percent of pump users recommended that apparatus, while only 63 percent of syringe-using diabetics endorsed that approach.

Implantable defibrillators are a 98-percent-effective treatment for ventricular arrhythmias that can cause Sudden Cardiac Death, an ailment that kills 233,000 individuals annually. ObamaCare's tax will make defibrillators and pacemakers pricier to acquire and also to refine over time. At the margins, this stupidity increases cardiac deaths.

Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 11:56pm
America and Earth need more such inventions, plus continuous improvements after introduction. Why can't diabetics enjoy pumps that automatically monitor blood sugars and inject insulin -- essentially artificial pancreases? Every dollar this proposed tax whisks to Washington is one less dollar available for the research and development needed to make such medical dreams come true.

"The situation all comes down to shared responsibility," Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D -- Montana) told journalists on October 19. "We're all in this together as Americans. That means individuals, providers, hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry -- and medical device manufacturers."

Baucus is correct. Medical-gear makers should underwrite their fair share of whatever healthcare reform might become law. They should do this by paying their corporate taxes, just like any other company. Period. Taxing this industry to overhaul healthcare is as boneheaded as charging police-car manufacturers a dedicated anti-crime tax.

These enterprises help Americans enjoy longer, happier, healthier lives. Why do Democrats want to give them 40 billion lashes, rather than applaud their priceless work?

Obama, Baucus, and too many Democrats have an almost touching naïveté about how the world works. Pounding this industry with punitive taxes will yield fewer -- not more -- life-extending and life-enhancing innovations.

Higher taxes, lower research spending, and pink slips for scientists: Democrat beatings will continue until medicine improves.

Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 11:58pm
The Obamanation administration cannot even deliver TIMELY flu vaccinations for American citizens and the leftist expect them to deliver on our healthcare!

What fools!

Posted by BigPasture at 11/01/2009 @ 12:13am
We're seeing a big government health care program in operation right now--the Obama administration's effort to deal with the swine flu problem. No, come to think of it, it's now the swine flu emergency. Last week, President Obama so legally designated it. How's that test case in government-run emergency care going?

Turn on your local news to find out. You'll see false reassurances, broken promises, rationing which doesn't provide the promised rations, queues lengthening while supplies run out, and lots of bureaucrats explaining just why things aren't working quite as their centrally planned plans had planned.

The swine flu emergency is a foretaste of life under the Pelosi Plan. Surely this spectacle, happening in real time before us, will give even more Democrats pause. Do they really want to be known as the Swine Flu Democrats?

I suspect that late this week, at least 40 House Democrats will heed the wishes of the American people and refuse to rubberstamp the Pelosi Plan. And once it has been relegated to the dustbin of history, sensible members of Congress from both sides of the aisle will get together to pass reasonable, incremental health care reforms.

Posted by BigPasture at 11/01/2009 @ 07:26am
Posted by BigPasture at 11/01/2009 @ 12:13am | Posted by BigPasture at 11/01/2009 @ 07:26am |

The lack of vaccine preparation you seem suddenly, paradoxically concerned about is yet more evidence that the for-profit healthcare industry doesn't do any better than "central planning" when actual poop hits an actual fan.

Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 10:01am
speak for yourself

Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2009 @ 8:34pm

I did.

Tell me Darla, when were you ordained and by whom?

what Seminary did you attend?

And how many years have you taught the Bible?

Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

All right; so how does Congressionally-enacted health-care reform violate the Constitution?

Posted by Thrawn at 10/31/2009 @ 5:04pm

Still trying to defend the indefensible?

The Federal govt has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONTROL HEALTHCARE SERVICES.

We need to tar and feather every member of Congress that supports this marxist attempt to take over our country from the people.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 7:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Let's all have a credential-fest here, then. Since we're asking people for their pastoral credentials, Larry, where did you get your law license?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/01/2009 @ 1:52pm
"What do you call 500 Lawyers at the bottom of the Ocean? A good start" Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 12:52pm |

Anti doesn't need your doctors or your stinkin' lawyers or your muni water supply, or firemen, or roads, or...

....civilization.

Sound like any other famous cavedwellers with kidney problems?

Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 2:08pm
Let's all have a credential-fest here, then. Since we're asking people for their pastoral credentials, Larry, where did you get your law license?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/01/2009 @ 1:52pm |

I never claimed to have law degree. But I've studied the constitution and constitutional history for 50 years. I read the constitution and the writings of the founders every week. I've studied many of the countries early constitutional scholars, like Story, Marshall, Simon Greenleaf (rules of evidence), Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Jonathan Eliot, Jefferson, James Wilson, and more

An excellent reference source

http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm

As to Darla, she might have a level of credibility if she could honestly state that she has at least studied theology informally for a number of years and cited the sources

Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 2:32pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 7:01pm </i>

Once again...would you care to warrant this claim? Does healthcare participate in interstate commerce? Yes. Does Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce? Yes. Does Congress therefore have the power to regulate the interstate healthcare system? Yes.

And so, the final step...does Congressional heath-care reform constitute regulation of the interstate health-care system? Yes it does.

Posted by Thrawn at 11/01/2009 @ 5:20pm
And just out of curiosity...by Marshall do you mean Justice John Marshall? The one who was instrumental in defining the scope of the Commerce Clause?

Posted by Thrawn at 11/01/2009 @ 6:54pm
Yea Thrawn, word and more! Thank you.

Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 7:57pm
There seems to be a grave misunderstanding about the nature and the role of medical industry vendors, large and small. I think it's clear that these people are after one thing only, to extract as much money as possible out of hospitals and insurance companies. The wellness of patients is irrelevent to them. They play off doctors against administrators, or health systems off of one another, or the government, or anyone with boat loads of money to exploit the following precept; if one hospital acquires a product that is sold as advertising better results, then every other hospital in the world is automatically doing something wrong by not having that product. They have created a tyranny over their customers by forcing expensive change on a continuous basis, and that doesn't mean it's good or necessary change, rather it's THEIR change and they have copyrights and trademarks on the product. It's a continuous string of mini-monopolies, once the gravy train stops then suddenly they unfold the latest version and sell it at full retail with zero discounts to the same people, renewing their stranglehold. A lot of it is purely marketing, and adds little or no value to patient care. The "trails" this stuff goes through is created and controlled by the same people making a living off of it's sale. That's why you see the same drug being sold with tiny variations under 5 or 6 different brand names. They are re-released under new brand names at convenient times so they can gouge for the new drug pricing until the generic licensing is sold to other companies. No one should be shedding any tears for the vendors in this equation.

Posted by Milhaus at 11/01/2009 @ 10:14pm
Why is religion even brought into these comments? That really makes me angry. Also unless you're a female? Just shut the heck up, because you don't have a clue as to what females have had to put with over the centuries! I get so sick, and tired of males believing they know what they're talking about when it comes to what women think, need, or want!

Posted by sheila60 at 11/02/2009 @ 07:56am
Santi and the Dunce couldn't find Marxism in the dictionary much less tell us what it is because there are no examples of it.Santi in fact is a supporter of the "new" capitalists,Communist China.He feels that they have changed from Mao's Red Book to the Blue Book because they have propped up our war machine.The Dunce just doesn't get it.He supports big business and their assorted lobbying and advertising arms that are joined at the hip.He has no idea of what the health care bill will or will not do.I will weigh in with this personal note regarding the uninsured.This past weekend my wife and I went to see our son's final home college football game.He didn't play because of a blood clot in his hand that was discovered late Wednesday night.On Saturday morning we checked him out of the hospital.One of his prescriptions cost us $90. However if you did not have insurance it was $450. This was the "cheap" part of the visit.Without the procedure my son would have had 1 or 2 fingers amputated because of lost blood circulation.How is this approached by people without insurance?Perhaps as Eric Cantor said ,check out a local charity? In my son's case he literally had a six hour window in which to be treated. So if I am uninsured do I care about medical experimentation costs for medical device makers?These same people on the stock exchange who have given campaign contributions. What is our society and who are the important parts of it?I am tired of hearing how badly corporations are being treated. They are being treated much better than the individual.We talk about the Constitution not being followed,how about the simple treatment of our fellow man?

Posted by whatozz at 11/02/2009 @ 08:27am
I hear you whatozz, when my husband was in the hospital an asprin cost four dollars, FOUR DOLLARS!!! And that was twelve years ago, I can't imagine what it costs now, talk about gouging! AND, we had insurance, does that mean that the asprin cost more for the uninsured???

Posted by Denise29 at 11/02/2009 @ 11:48am
"when my husband was in the hospital an asprin cost four dollars, FOUR DOLLAR" "AND, we had insurance, does that mean that the asprin cost more for the uninsured???"

The $4 price is for the retail price (ie what the uninsured pay). Insurance companies reprice the bill down to the negotiated rates - typically a lot less. For one example I once went to the ER got a Cat Scan and blodwork done. Total cost - $8700.oo. Cost paid by Insurance after repricing - $1100.

Why so expensive? In a word - Medicare. Any hospital that participates in medicare is prohibited from engaging in differential pricing. They can negotiate group rates with insurance companies but they cannot charge different prices to different individuals.

So, under federal law, a homeless person with no insurance must be charged the same price as a visiting Saudi Oil Sheik. Naturally hospitals charge astronomical amounts in their retail pricing because of this. This retail pricing then forms the starting point for the negotiating of group rates with the insurance industry.

Posted by The_Swami at 11/04/2009 @ 5:31pm