Insurer Denies Claim: Bleeding Breast is Not An Emergency

Regardless of the story, watch the sheep on the right come out in support big insurance over its customers.

The debate continues. Of course insurance companies dont want the government to get involved and take over the healthcare for American citizens, but they also dont want to pay for anything and will try to find any reason possible to not cover you when you have a medical issue.

OneRyder wrote:

Regardless of the story, watch the sheep on the right come out in support big insurance over its customers.

Was this ethically worng? Absolutely. So let me guess, you want a government controled option right? A government option in which we all have to pay into.

"Form one man's abilities to one's needs?"

I don't trust the government to make this decision either.

I think ALL insurance companies pull this stuff, Social Security and L&I included.

They tell you 'no' to a claim. They hope that you will just go away, and most people do. Saves them $$. They are douches.

I have had to fight for quite a few of my so-called benefits. Just watched my 23-year old son, recently out of Army service take a 'no' answer from unemployment insurance (which I believe he paid into while getting crappy Army pay for over 3 years). I told him to appeal, but he is still young and has not been screwed over enough to get mad.......

Sorry to go on, but insurance is an industry that makes big bucks off misery and the only service we pay for and then are penalized when we use it, Right?

not a political issue to me.

This lady was "covered" by Blue Shield. Funny, if you go to their website, you find that they want you to click on a "reform" link that states "lets build on healthcare that is already working". How sad. What are they so afraid of?

I look at medicaid, medicare, and the health care we provide our veteran's and wonder if I really want the government providing my healthcare. Insurance companies suck, but in many cases I can appeal to my state board or get an atty to sue. I have no recourse if the gov't screws me over.

Michelle Obama's UHI Patient Dumping Nets 5X Profits at Taxpayer Expense

By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2008; Page A01

The hospital told state regulators it spent $10 million on charity care for the poor in fiscal 2007 -- 1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the bipartisan, nonprofit Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. That is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in Cook County.

As a nonprofit, the University of Chicago Medical Center receives annual tax breaks worth nearly five times as much as it spends on charity care, the analysis found.

Quentin Young, the South Side physician, described the medical center's level of charity spending as "ludicrous."

Young, known in Chicago for having been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s personal physician, is chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, a Chicago-based nonprofit that advocates health-care reform. Young considered himself an ally of Barack Obama while he was a state legislator.

"That's shameful," Young said of the percentages. "They are arguably, if not defrauding, then at least taking advantage of a public subsidy. We would like to see them give more than the minimum. The need is there."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

Debra27 wrote:

I don't trust the government to make this decision either.
I think ALL insurance companies pull this stuff, Social Security and L&I included.
They tell you 'no' to a claim. They hope that you will just go away, and most people do. Saves them $$. They are douches.
I have had to fight for quite a few of my so-called benefits. Just watched my 23-year old son, recently out of Army service take a 'no' answer from unemployment insurance (which I believe he paid into while getting crappy Army pay for over 3 years). I told him to appeal, but he is still young and has not been screwed over enough to get mad.......
Sorry to go on, but insurance is an industry that makes big bucks off misery and the only service we pay for and then are penalized when we use it, Right?
not a political issue to me.

Critics describe Michelle Obama's UHI program as attempt to ensure that the hospital retains only affluent patients with insurance

By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2008; Page A01

"If you put enough money into it, you could save a whole bunch of community health centers," Young said. "But to date, they haven't."

Edward Novak, president of Chicago's Sacred Heart Hospital, declined to discuss the center's initiative in particular but dismissed as "bull" attempts to justify such programs as good for patients.

"What they're really saying is,'Don't use our emergency room because it will cost us money, and we don't want the public-aid population,' " Novak said.

Selling the Idea

In December 2006, the medical center hired a public relations firm, ASK Public Strategies, to help sell the Urban Health Initiative. ASK is co-owned by Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist.

The firm delivered its report in May 2007 saying that, while nurses were generally favorable about the Urban Health Initiative, "primary care doctors were more negative, viewing it as a break with UCMC's community commitment."

An April 2007 draft report from the medical center's polling firm, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, said focus groups suggested that "enough latent suspicion toward the hospital and university as elitist exists to ensure that a political attack against the Urban Health Initiative as deceptive and self-serving would find fertile ground."

"More than a few staff members -- particularly medical staff -- express strongly worded concern or disappointment with UCMC in its commitment to the community," the report said.

One survey question asked for reaction to a particular criticism that had been leveled:

"This new health initiative is not really about helping the residents of the South Side of Chicago. It is simply a way for the University of Chicago Medical Center to save money and reduce costs by serving fewer poor people without health insurance."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

OneRyder wrote:

Regardless of the story, watch the sheep on the right come out in support big insurance over its customers.

Michelle Obama's Patient Dumping: What the Neighbors Say

By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2008; Page A01

Axelrod's ASK's report emphasized the need to be transparent and acknowledge that the hospital was pursuing the initiative in ITS' OWN SELF-INTEREST, as well as that of patients.

It also stressed that in selling the program to the public, "credible validators are critical; public health experts and ministers trump politicians."

The medical center appears to have enacted some of the ASK report's recommendations but not others; the name was not changed.

"I've had some complaints from my constituents," said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, a former teacher who represents Chicago's 4th Ward and who will be an Obama delegate at the Democratic National Convention. "It's hard to know whether this is motivated by the interests of the patients or by the financial interests of the medical center."

Asked her personal conclusion, Preckwinkle paused. "They have decided they need to have as many paying patients as possible," she said. "That's all I'm going to say."

Jeffrey Schaider, chairman of emergency medicine at nearby John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, also is skeptical. Schaider said his emergency room welcomes all patients, whether or not their maladies ultimately prove urgent. Lower-income workers also often find it difficult to visit clinics, which have limited hours, he said.

"Often, the patients think it's something serious when it's happening to them," Schaider said. "And a lot of the time, the patients are right."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

This is why Michelle Obama was Wrong to create her Patient Dumping Scheme.

Crash wrote:

<quoted text>
Was this ethically worng? Absolutely. So let me guess, you want a government controled option right? A government option in which we all have to pay into.
"Form one man's abilities to one's needs?"

I'm not afraid of the competition this would cause for the insurance companies.

Its not like State run colleges hurt the profits of private universities to the point where private universities can't exist.

Thomas Sowell: Medical care confusion
2009

Is there a coherent argument for government-controlled medical care or are slogans and hysteria considered sufficient?

We hear endlessly about how many Americans don’t have health insurance. But, if we stop and think — which politicians hope we never do — that raises the question as to why that calls for government-controlled medical care.

A bigger question is whether medical care will be better or worse after the government takes it over. There are many available facts relevant to those crucial questions but remarkably little interest in those facts.

There are facts about the massive government-run medical programs already in existence in the United States — Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ hospitals — as well as government-run medical systems in other countries.

None of the people who are trying to rush government-run medical care through Congress before we have time to think about it are pointing to Medicare, Medicaid or veterans’ hospitals as shining examples of how wonderful we can expect government medical care to be when it becomes “universal.”

As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don’t have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid.

In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health. If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance.

Here, the advocates of government-run medical care say that we all end up paying, one way or another, for the free medical care that hospitals are forced by law to provide in their emergency rooms. But unless you think that any situation you don’t like is a reason to give politicians a blank check for “change,” the relevant question becomes whether the alternative is either less expensive or of better quality. Nothing is cheaper just because part of the price is paid in higher taxes.

Such questions seldom get asked, much less answered. We are like someone being rushed by a used car dealer to sign on the dotted line. But getting stuck with a car that is a lemon is nothing compared to signing away your right to decide what medical care you or your loved ones will get in life and death situations.

Politicians can throw rhetoric around about “bringing down the cost of health care” or they can even throw numbers around. But the numbers that politicians are throwing around don’t match the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office finds when it analyzes the hard data...

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jul/21/...

Follow the link & Keep reading....

Debra27 wrote:

I don't trust the government to make this decision either.

Then don't buy gov option'ed insurance. No Bill is forcing anyone to buy gov option insurance.

But I also assume many folks, including businesses will be happy to assume the savings.

Crash wrote:

<quoted text>
Was this ethically worng? Absolutely. So let me guess, you want a government controled option right? A government option in which we all have to pay into.
"Form one man's abilities to one's needs?"

You have no idea what you're talking about. A government option would result in lower premiums and better coverage for nearly everyone.

Bob wrote:

I look at medicaid, medicare, and the health care we provide our veteran's and wonder if I really want the government providing my healthcare. Insurance companies suck, but in many cases I can appeal to my state board or get an atty to sue. I have no recourse if the gov't screws me over.

Bingo. This is the heart of the matter.

WOW. I could have sworn that the right used scare tactics.

I guess the left does also.

OneRyder wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not afraid of the competition this would cause for the insurance companies.
Its not like State run colleges hurt the profits of private universities to the point where private universities can't exist.

Why Lie?

Universitie(s) cannot and do not ever intend to educate the entire country where Obama is already on record as wanting a Single Payer government fixes all Health Care System.

If you continue to LIE, I will continue to expose you as a LIAR.

Crash wrote:

<quoted text>
Was this ethically worng? Absolutely. So let me guess, you want a government controled option right? A government option in which we all have to pay into.
"Form one man's abilities to one's needs?"

If it means healthcare will be cheaper for us as a whole. Sure.

We already pay into Medicare and Medicaid and the Repub party who was once against it, now don't want us to touch it.

Its amazing how those who were so willing to send dollars and lives over to Iraq to liberate Shia Muslims are so against any other type of spending here in the U.S.

If it makes how much we pay for healthcare decrease, and makes for insurance policies that actually have to live up to promises, I've go no problem with a gov option.

Only the insurance companies lose because they have to compete in price and service.

OneRyder wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not afraid of the competition this would cause for the insurance companies.
Its not like State run colleges hurt the profits of private universities to the point where private universities can't exist.

You do realize the government already controls healthcare and are saying they want to control the remainder of it right? They control liscense issued for doctors, permits for building facilities, the interstate commission has stopped the purchase of insurance across state lines.

In essence, they already control the industry. Open competition is what needs to be done. How do we do it? Get the government out of healthcare all together.

Lawrence Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>You have no idea what you're talking about. A government option would result in lower premiums and better coverage for nearly everyone.

Based on what set of lies and how does it cost less when it costs us $1 Trillion Dollars?

Simply try to back up you lies so we can laugh and show you CBO reports, Massive NHS Failures, Canadian HealthCare requiring a MAJOR OVERHAUL before it crashes, etc. etc. etc.

Bob wrote:

I look at medicaid, medicare, and the health care we provide our veteran's and wonder if I really want the government providing my healthcare. Insurance companies suck, but in many cases I can appeal to my state board or get an atty to sue. I have no recourse if the gov't screws me over.

And if tort reform is passed, you might not have any recourse against private companies either.