quote:

Originally posted by Chizzazz123:
It's a little known horror in the world of health insurance: women who have been raped are often turned down for coverage.

Why? Because as part of their immediate after care, they are routinely given anti-HIV medication. Once those drugs hit their medical charts, the insurers don't want to touch them, no matter the reason.

And some of you would waste your time defending these repulsive businesses...

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:

quote:

Originally posted by Chizzazz123:
It's a little known horror in the world of health insurance: women who have been raped are often turned down for coverage.

Why? Because as part of their immediate after care, they are routinely given anti-HIV medication. Once those drugs hit their medical charts, the insurers don't want to touch them, no matter the reason.

And some of you would waste your time defending these repulsive businesses...

It would be nice if you'd quantify and substantiate your claim.

And no, anecdotal reports from Huffington Post don't count.

You are the left wing version of ScoobyVols.

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:

quote:

Originally posted by Chizzazz123:
It's a little known horror in the world of health insurance: women who have been raped are often turned down for coverage.

Why? Because as part of their immediate after care, they are routinely given anti-HIV medication. Once those drugs hit their medical charts, the insurers don't want to touch them, no matter the reason.

And some of you would waste your time defending these repulsive businesses...

And no, anecdotal reports from Huffington Post don't count.

You are the left wing version of ScoobyVols.

quote:

Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free.

Read more at: Link

quote:

Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for the health insurance industry's largest trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said insurers do not discriminate against victims of sexual assault and ordinarily would not even know if a patient had been raped.

"These issues you are bringing up, they deserve to be brought up," said Pisano. "People who have experienced rape and sexual assault are victims and we want them to be in a system where everyone is covered."


Turner's story about HIV drugs is not unusual, said Cindy Holtzman, an insurance agent and expert in medical billing at Medical Refund Service, Inc. of Marietta, Ga. Insurers generally categorize HIV-positive people as having a pre-existing condition and deny them coverage. Holtzman said that health insurance companies also consistently decline coverage for anyone who has taken anti-HIV drugs, even if they test negative for the virus. "It's basically an automatic no," she said.

Pisano, of the insurance trade group, said: "If you put down on a form that you are or were taking anti-HIV drugs at any time, they [the insurance companies] are going to understand that you are or were in treatment for HIV, period," she said. "That could be a factor in determining whether you get coverage."

Some doctors and nurses said that the industry's policy is not medically sound. "The chance of a rape victim actually contracting AIDS is very low. It doesn't make any sense to use that as a calculus for determining who get health insurance," said Dr. Alex Schafir, faculty instructor at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Ore.

Read more at: Link

quote:

Originally posted by MotownGator:
Why do you hate a fellow Greek American Cats? What about the fat infant and the tiny infant that MSM talked about? There was another case when a abused woman (wife beater husband) was denied insurance claim. Insurance company claimed pre-existing condition BS.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
While the Huffington Post certainly has a POV, just because something is on there doesn't mean it is false.

Link

Reading the article, unless the sources quoted are outright lying, it seems to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I think you kind of improperly jumped on the messenger on this one. To me this issue is precisely one of the major things wrong with our health care system.

quote:

Originally posted by Chizzazz123:
It's a little known horror in the world of health insurance: women who have been raped are often turned down for coverage.

Why? Because as part of their immediate after care, they are routinely given anti-HIV medication. Once those drugs hit their medical charts, the insurers don't want to touch them, no matter the reason.

And some of you would waste your time defending these repulsive businesses...

quote:

Originally posted by scooby321@aol.com:
Chizzz get gets his talking points from the SEIU communist Union. Not fact mind you. Link

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:

quote:

Originally posted by MotownGator:
Why do you hate a fellow Greek American Cats? What about the fat infant and the tiny infant that MSM talked about? There was another case when a abused woman (wife beater husband) was denied insurance claim. Insurance company claimed pre-existing condition BS.

Call me the anti-Arianna.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
While the Huffington Post certainly has a POV, just because something is on there doesn't mean it is false.

Link

Reading the article, unless the sources quoted are outright lying, it seems to happen.

Where did I deny that it happens. Chizzazz's use of the word "often" is Limbaughesque.

How many times does this happen vs. how many times such claims are made? Is it 3% .03% or 30% of the time?

Give me some numbers, and then we can talk about the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I think you kind of improperly jumped on the messenger on this one. To me this issue is precisely one of the major things wrong with our health care system.

I jumped on the messenger because he's using facts in exactly the same way right wing idiots like Beck do.

Here's the "argument" again.

quote:

Originally posted by Chizzazz123:
It's a little known horror in the world of health insurance: women who have been raped are often turned down for coverage.

Why? Because as part of their immediate after care, they are routinely given anti-HIV medication. Once those drugs hit their medical charts, the insurers don't want to touch them, no matter the reason.

And some of you would waste your time defending these repulsive businesses...

I'm no fan of insurance companies. I agree with you that, like any publicly traded company, they are amoral. The question is, "Properly regulated, do they serve a useful purpose?"

Of course, for people like Chizzazz, to even pose such a question is to "defend these repulsive businesses."

So please, tell me how widespread this practice is, and what, if anything is being done to correct it.

Then perhaps we can have a discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
That doesn't take away from the point stated that this is not unusual for this admittedly rare circumstance - even the insurance rep admits that if you have taken HIV drugs that is a factor.

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
That doesn't take away from the point stated that this is not unusual for this admittedly rare circumstance - even the insurance rep admits that if you have taken HIV drugs that is a factor.

Sorry, but unless I see some numbers, I'm not going to cede that it's "not unusual."

Is it reprehensible behavior? Yes.

Is it common? That's yet to be proven.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I doubt the numbers you are looking for are available. However, I would say that it is highly plausible that quite often, or even most of the time, if you have taken HIV drugs you would not be able to get insurance for some amount of time. Would you disagree?

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I don't need some sort of study on this for the point to be driven home. The point is that the private insurance model is about profit maximization, which means minimization of risk. In my mind that is a fundamental conflict, and is morally wrong (from a societal standpoint). This example is a vivid example of this. Whether it happens 10, 100 or 1000 times doesn't change that fact.

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I doubt the numbers you are looking for are available. However, I would say that it is highly plausible that quite often, or even most of the time, if you have taken HIV drugs you would not be able to get insurance for some amount of time. Would you disagree?

That may well be. And if I contracted HIV due to persistent risky behavior - I don't know that I should be easily insurable any more than if I smoke or eat Big Macs 4 or 5 times per week.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I don't need some sort of study on this for the point to be driven home. The point is that the private insurance model is about profit maximization, which means minimization of risk. In my mind that is a fundamental conflict, and is morally wrong (from a societal standpoint). This example is a vivid example of this. Whether it happens 10, 100 or 1000 times doesn't change that fact.

So the fact that it's all about "minimizing risk" is what's immoral?

May I then take it that you're fine with heavy smokers being insured no differently from those who choose a healthier lifestyle? After all, that's risk management too, is it not?

If the government were to provide the insurance, would it not also need to minimize (or manage) risk?

I understand the rape victim should be assumed to not be at fault, but when we're dealing with tens of millions of people, some sorts of guidelines will have to be established and there will always be cases of people, like a rape victim for whom those guidelines will be capricious.

I don't know if the private model is flexible enough to deal with such cases without some government interference, but I'm also quite uneasy that the government assuming control of the whole operation is a good answer either.

Your damning of the impulse to minimize risk as immoral doesn't seem to help much, as far as I can see.

quote:

Originally posted by Gator Rick:
I'm a little bit confused by this entire thread. And a bit surprised by your attitude Cats. Seems a bit academic, when we're talking about real life issues. Does it really matter if it happens once or 100 or 1,000,000 times?

If a smoker gets cancer, do we deny them insurance or health care? absolutely not.

What if someone habitually drives faster, thus more susceptible to a serious car crash and medical attention? Do we deny them health care?

Some people believe that eating meat causes poor health.

I imagine, if we were to think about it, we all engage in some sort of "risky" behavior.

Sorry, our current system is broken- and this is yet another example of it. Regardless of how many times it happens.

quote:

Originally posted by ncargat1:
This is nothing bu an emotion driven opinion:

But it is just sad that this conversation is even taking place. It is another example of how the insurance companies have pretty much sealed their own fate. Regardless of how large or small this number of women is, it would have been a simple matter for the CEO's of these companies to come out at say "Yes, this is an extraordinary case that we should look into and find a better solution". But instead, they go before congress and spout some stuff about protecting their shareholders and showing not one bit of remorse about people they are dropping just at they need cancer treatment, or rape victims they won't cover, etc.....

In my opinion they should all fire their PR Firms and oh yeah, they have dug their own grave, we should bury them in it!

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by Gator Rick:
I'm a little bit confused by this entire thread. And a bit surprised by your attitude Cats. Seems a bit academic, when we're talking about real life issues. Does it really matter if it happens once or 100 or 1,000,000 times?

If a smoker gets cancer, do we deny them insurance or health care? absolutely not.

What if someone habitually drives faster, thus more susceptible to a serious car crash and medical attention? Do we deny them health care?

Some people believe that eating meat causes poor health.

I imagine, if we were to think about it, we all engage in some sort of "risky" behavior.

Sorry, our current system is broken- and this is yet another example of it. Regardless of how many times it happens.

Rick,

I am confused by your stance with health insurance but not the justice system.

Do you have a problem when innocent people are sentenced to die or put into prison for their life for a crime they did not commit?

They both are broken and both need to be tweaked, some more so than others. It is the extent to which they are broken that prioritizes your limited resources.

quote:

Originally posted by Gator Rick:

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by Gator Rick:
I'm a little bit confused by this entire thread. And a bit surprised by your attitude Cats. Seems a bit academic, when we're talking about real life issues. Does it really matter if it happens once or 100 or 1,000,000 times?

If a smoker gets cancer, do we deny them insurance or health care? absolutely not.

What if someone habitually drives faster, thus more susceptible to a serious car crash and medical attention? Do we deny them health care?

Some people believe that eating meat causes poor health.

I imagine, if we were to think about it, we all engage in some sort of "risky" behavior.

Sorry, our current system is broken- and this is yet another example of it. Regardless of how many times it happens.

Rick,

I am confused by your stance with health insurance but not the justice system.

Do you have a problem when innocent people are sentenced to die or put into prison for their life for a crime they did not commit?

They both are broken and both need to be tweaked, some more so than others. It is the extent to which they are broken that prioritizes your limited resources.

I'm not sure I get what you are asking me. I dont think i've opined on the justice system. If you have a better way for our justice system to operate, i'm all ears. Personally, I think DNA evidence should be tested where we have it available. This will at least free some innocents. I also thing that there are far too many instances of poor cop/prosecutorial behavior that needs to be addressed.

For health insurance, I think we've gotten away from what it is supposed to be. ALL insurance is socialistic in nature- as it should be. We pool our resources so that when one of us needs it, its available. In the instances that we can penalize "risky" behavior- I suppose we could do it. But that is really a very slippery slope. Afterall, who determines what is "risky" behavior health-wise? I'm a meat eater. Are you going to tax me more because that is considered a higher risk for heart attacks or blocked arteries, etc. etc.

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I doubt the numbers you are looking for are available. However, I would say that it is highly plausible that quite often, or even most of the time, if you have taken HIV drugs you would not be able to get insurance for some amount of time. Would you disagree?

That may well be. And if I contracted HIV due to persistent risky behavior - I don't know that I should be easily insurable any more than if I smoke or eat Big Macs 4 or 5 times per week.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I don't need some sort of study on this for the point to be driven home. The point is that the private insurance model is about profit maximization, which means minimization of risk. In my mind that is a fundamental conflict, and is morally wrong (from a societal standpoint). This example is a vivid example of this. Whether it happens 10, 100 or 1000 times doesn't change that fact.

So the fact that it's all about "minimizing risk" is what's immoral?

May I then take it that you're fine with heavy smokers being insured no differently from those who choose a healthier lifestyle? After all, that's risk management too, is it not?

If the government were to provide the insurance, would it not also need to minimize (or manage) risk?

I understand the rape victim should be assumed to not be at fault, but when we're dealing with tens of millions of people, some sorts of guidelines will have to be established and there will always be cases of people, like a rape victim for whom those guidelines will be capricious.

I don't know if the private model is flexible enough to deal with such cases without some government interference, but I'm also quite uneasy that the government assuming control of the whole operation is a good answer either.

Your damning of the impulse to minimize risk as immoral doesn't seem to help much, as far as I can see.

quote:

Originally posted by Gator Rick:
I'm not sure I get what you are asking me. I dont think i've opined on the justice system. If you have a better way for our justice system to operate, i'm all ears. Personally, I think DNA evidence should be tested where we have it available. This will at least free some innocents. I also thing that there are far too many instances of poor cop/prosecutorial behavior that needs to be addressed.

For health insurance, I think we've gotten away from what it is supposed to be. ALL insurance is socialistic in nature- as it should be. We pool our resources so that when one of us needs it, its available. In the instances that we can penalize "risky" behavior- I suppose we could do it. But that is really a very slippery slope. Afterall, who determines what is "risky" behavior health-wise? I'm a meat eater. Are you going to tax me more because that is considered a higher risk for heart attacks or blocked arteries, etc. etc.

quote:

Originally posted by AugustaGator:

quote:

Originally posted by Gator Rick:
I'm not sure I get what you are asking me. I dont think i've opined on the justice system. If you have a better way for our justice system to operate, i'm all ears. Personally, I think DNA evidence should be tested where we have it available. This will at least free some innocents. I also thing that there are far too many instances of poor cop/prosecutorial behavior that needs to be addressed.

For health insurance, I think we've gotten away from what it is supposed to be. ALL insurance is socialistic in nature- as it should be. We pool our resources so that when one of us needs it, its available. In the instances that we can penalize "risky" behavior- I suppose we could do it. But that is really a very slippery slope. Afterall, who determines what is "risky" behavior health-wise? I'm a meat eater. Are you going to tax me more because that is considered a higher risk for heart attacks or blocked arteries, etc. etc.

Rick,

Excuse me if I have revised history.

I recall a discussion awhile back, soon after the Ohio situation, where you deemed a small portion of innocent people judged guilty of murder and sentenced to death as an acceptable outcome in our judicial system. I was taken aback by this stance at the time and is the reason why I am recalling it now. Some bells cannot be un-rung.

The issue, as I understand Cats' position, is what is the size of the problem we are talking about in this specific instance and these other instances.

I constantly hear and read examples, mainly in the press, but also via someone who knows someone etc, but I have not met anybody that has been subjected to such treatment. No doubt it exists.

Until the answer to the question 'What is healthcare' is made, we are just pissing in the fan. Unfortunately, the broad definition we would all like to have, will likely not be substainable due to greed and envy.

Good luck with your quest.

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by catsigator:

quote:

Originally posted by L-Boy:
I doubt the numbers you are looking for are available. However, I would say that it is highly plausible that quite often, or even most of the time, if you have taken HIV drugs you would not be able to get insurance for some amount of time. Would you disagree?

That may well be. And if I contracted HIV due to persistent risky behavior - I don't know that I should be easily insurable any more than if I smoke or eat Big Macs 4 or 5 times per week.

So I guess getting raped is engaging in "persistent risky behavior"? Of course, there was a school of thought decades ago that women who were raped deserved what they got, I assume you are not subscribing to that argument?

quote:

Originally posted by spurdog:
With the current move to the public option it would seem more difficult to prevent private insureres from using pre-existing conditions as an exclusionary tool when in fact car insurers and home owners do it all the time. Bad drivers and people with pools or high risk dogs are regularly rejected or pay much higher rates. Even the area you live in is evaluated as part of the formula. If the public option is available to those who cant afford or arent accepted in the private market then the public option will have alot of high risk people in it. I dont need to spell out the rest of that story do I?

quote:

Originally posted by spurdog:
And that is going to cut the cost for carrying insurance? That is an unsustainble business model for private insurance IMO! Do you agree? If so, then doesnt this look alot like what Obama has stated in the past the he wants...a single payer system?

quote:

Healthcare costs are up.(link)

Here are the culprits.

Drug companies spend roughly as much on advertising and promotion - $20 billion a year - as they do on research and development of new drugs.

• Overall, American pharmaceutical firms employ one sales person for every physician in the country. They also pick up the tab for doctors to attend seminars promoting their products, which happen to take place in desirable locations, such as Florida and the Caribbean.

• New technology - from diagnostic devices to surgical techniques - accounts for more than half the rise in total healthcare spending in the past three years, says Andrew Tilton, an economist at Goldman Sachs, an investment bank in New York.

• Despite rising costs, profit margins on healthcare products and services, including health insurance, have been going up - rapidly - rather than down. Mr. Tilton says mergers have increased providers' pricing power.

Even before the new Medicare law extending prescription-drug benefits, experts had forecast higher costs ahead. The rising cost of healthcare affects all Americans, whether or not they make much use of the medical system. It means they have less to spend elsewhere.

"[Soaring US costs] just can't go on much longer," says Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) in Washington, D.C. "Things will happen."

The latest cost numbers indicate the growing economic challenge.

Already the nation is spending about $1.65 trillion a year on healthcare. That represents 15 percent of gross domestic product, the total output of goods and services. It consumes one-fourth of the federal budget, more than defense.

By comparison, Canada spends about 10 percent of GDP on a universal, government-run healthcare system. Further, Canadians live a bit longer on average than Americans. That suggests lower costs haven't damaged the health of Canadians.

Outpacing inflation

Surveying nearly 3,000 employers, Mercer Human Resource Consulting finds that their health-benefit costs rose 10.1 percent this year, while inflation hovered around 2 percent. (See chart.)

The cost increase is less than the nearly 15 percent rise in 2002. But it still means that costs for each active employee, including all medical and dental plans offered, rose from $5,645 in 2002 to $6,215 in 2003.

Using a broader database that covers individual costs as well, the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) in Washington, reckons that healthcare expenses per privately insured American slowed in the first half of 2003 to a 8.5 percent increase from a 10 percent rise in the second half of 2002. That includes hospital inpatient and outpatient services, physicians, and - rising fastest of all in recent years - prescription-drug costs.

As costs spiral upward, more and more Americans are being priced out of the healthcare market.

Rising number of uninsured

The latest statistics show 44 million Americans are not covered by any health insurance. This number is likely to increase as costs rise further.

Higher costs discourage employers, especially small businesses, from providing health benefits to employees. And since employers are already boosting the cost to employees of health benefits, fewer workers will enroll in their firms' health plans.

In smaller companies, only 48 percent of employees elect family coverage, down from 51 percent in 2002. The $359 average monthly bill for HMO coverage is just too much for many, and it's getting worse.

The Mercer survey found that employee contributions, especially for family coverage, rose sharply in 2003. In the three previous years, employers had passed on to employees only a portion of cost increases. This year, "employers took back the lost ground," says Mercer consultant Blaine Bos.

Critics say the new Medicare drug benefit will tempt more companies to drop their coverage of retirees, despite new subsidies to encourage continuation. The benefit, though primarily shifting drug costs from individuals to the federal government, is expected to add to overall drug consumption.

The cost of bringing a single new drug to market has risen to about $1.7 billion, calculates Bain & Co., a Boston consulting firm. That's up from $1.1 billion from 1995 to 2000. These totals involve commercialization costs, such as preparing marketing materials.

Marketing that informs?

Drug companies defend their marketing expenses as educational, saying doctors have little spare time to inform themselves of the latest advances.

But "nobody wants to be educated by somebody who wants to sell them something," says Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. He calls the seminars "small-scale bribery."

What's to be done about rising medical costs? Here are some suggestions by experts, not all politically easy to obtain:

• Provide more information to consumers on what drug works, what procedures are best, which hospitals and physicians have good records. Insurance, for instance, shouldn't cover extra costs if a patient uses a brand-name drug when a cheaper generic does the job.

• Cut off expensive treatment if it extends someone's life only a few days or months.

• Spend more on prevention of disease by encouraging better lifestyles, improved nutrition, and other steps.

• Ban or control the advertising of prescription drugs to consumers. The "hype" in the ads that pepper the evening news and other programs has swelled drug sales and taken up physicians' time, suggests Mr. Caplan. But there is little indication that the extra drug consumption has improved health by much.

• Cap malpractice awards so doctors need not prescribe so many tests and other defensive practices.

• Let HMOs and other healthcare providers return to tighter management of costs, procedures that worked in the 1990s but were abandoned after severe criticism by customers and the press.