So you're saying that if an elderly person gets sick they should just give up and die because they're old so that insurance companies can pay for treatment for a younger person and still make a profit? I bet your opinion on that would change if the elderly person was your loved one.
Ad hominid and assumption much? Not to mention straw man. In 2000 the man closest to me in the entire world, my grandfather, was diagnosed with liver cancer. The doctors took a look at his situation and decided that his chances of survival were grim, but there were things they could do in order to prolong his life and possibly cure him. There was a chance he could've had chemo, undergone everything, and lived another 10 years.
He chose to die with dignity instead of racking up medical bills and delaying the inevitable. I miss him a ton. But I have more respect for him than anyone else in the entire world because he knew when it was his time to go, and went down like a brave, honest man instead of struggling and going out screaming and kicking like a lot of people do who absolutely refuse to face their end.
I agree that some people waste money on unnecessary things, but no one should put a price tag on a human life. That's disgusting. I suppose there are exceptions to every rule. I don't think it's right to keep someone in a coma alive for years with very little hope of them waking up, or people with diseases that will never be able to take care of themselves and would have a poor quality of life.
But you have to put a price on human life, even if your ultimate mission is to save as many people as possible. It's a basic principle of scarcity that there's not enough to keep everyone going. Putting a pricetag on things and making hard decisions isn't easy. It's certainly not something the average person wants to do. I've known people who worked for insurance companies who got physically ill over going into work at times. They couldn't handle the work. I understand that it's a difficult thing to do, but it's a necessary evil.
People don't defend big corporations for a reason. Right now insurance companies are mainly concerned with profit. Every month people pay them an ungodly amount of money. The average person can only go to the doctor a few times a year, but end up paying thousands.
WOAH, a company is concerned with profit! IMAGINE THAT. I wonder why they went into business? And people attack corporations for almost no reason nowadays. It's a popular sentiment in our society even if it is baseless a lot of the time.
I don't know about your doctor, but a visit to my family physician is $75. The best insurance plan I've been able to find is $190 with like a $500 deductible. So even if I do fake being sick one day in a month they still made $115 off me that month.
You're using evidence from your personal example in order to refute a broad point. Which makes your usage of numbers completely irrelevant. If you want to argue against the fact that people faking sick actually costs them a fair amount of money using statistics, you should actually use statistics are relevant. Granted the original claim was given by me without statistics and the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Which really leaves us at an impasse unless one of us actually digs up the numbers.
I am not a big fan of insurance compa nies because when I needed gallbladder surgery I was screwed. It was a pre existing condition so no one would take me. I could have died, but no one cared, not even the surgeon. My credit is now ruined because of medical bills.
And it sucks that you've fallen through the cracks. Some people do. No matter what system we have, some people will always fall through the cracks. With a population of over 300 million people in the United States a few cases of anecdotal evidence don't prove anything.
Personally in my life I don't know a single person who's ever had any problems with an insurance company. Does this mean that such problems don't exist? No. Does this mean there isn't a problem? No. But I can tell you I don't have the information before me to prove anything. I was simply applying a bit of healthy skepticism and spreading the blame around in a rational manner instead of making a polarized claim without evidence.
You're free to your opinion, but I won't take it seriously unless you've actually done research on it if you're making a solid claim.
Also, eighty year olds can live quite well. Though that aside, if someone wishes to tell a daughter or son that they are not allowed five more years with their mother because of medical costs they certainly can. I won’t be the one to do that. If someone would like to tell a mother or father that they won’t get five years with their child because the treatments are too expensive, be my guest. As cynical as anyone might profess to be, that is beyond that and passing into the world of callous cruelty.
The world IS callous and cruel. It's fun to pretend we like in an idyllic universe, but we don't. I'm not saying that you turn 80 and bam, we magically stop covering your medicine, but if there's an expensive procedure that you need, you're quite old, and it's only going to extend your life a very small amount of time, I don't think the insurance company should cover it. Be happy that you've lived a long and full life and say your goodbyes. Using the most advanced bits of medical technology to keep people alive as long as humanly possible is simply not sustainable in the world we live in to date. I would like to live in a world where it is, but this isn't it.
It's possible I'm wrong. I certainly wouldn't mind if I was. It'd probably take some serious change on behalf of the country to facilitate universal coverage while also keeping the cover for seniors at the current level regardless of the situation. I'm not really sure if I'm against that either. I'm just trying to point out that such situations make things difficulty, and questioning if it's really wrong to deny someone expensive procedures if it barely elongates life.
This is congressional testimony, not he-said-she-said. It's not an anecdote, it's a situation where the insurer's practice has actively denied someone coverage due to a mistake.
I like to watch Cspan and I have enough to know that just because it's happening before congress doesn't mean it isn't anecdotal BS. However, I will grant you that the initial story wasn't simply for the sake of argument. How many layers of filtration did the story go through to get from its inception to me? I'm not dumb enough to trust all of the hands it passed. Furthermore if you'd actually read what I said instead of straw-manning me you'd see the use of the word "maybe" and realize that I was making a general point about the unreliability of first hand accounts.
EDIT: I also realized that I did misread the original statement you made and your point about me misunderstanding that was valid... I don't know how I got her being a dermatologist out of it. My reading comprehension apparently failed me. Apologies for any confusion.
Above and beyond that, though, incompetence or carelessness? For something as complex as the human body, that's stretching it, especially since only now, in 2009 is the government actually funding programs to check what treatments actually are effective.
No private system has the incentive to do that, apparently.
Except scientists have been measuring the effectiveness of treatments for a long time now. In order to make any medical claim you need hard data to back it up or else the FDA (or is it the FTC, I think they both play a role) can sue your ass. Maybe we didn't have public funding but it's not entirely necessary in every situation as long as peer review of the scientific community is involved in analyzing the studies done.
When all is said and done I actually support health care reform. I don't think I'd mind paying slightly higher taxes to do so either. What bothers me is the "it's all the greedy corporation's fault" mentality. The system is broken for many reasons, and it's not just the Insurance Industry. There's a lot of blame to be spread around, scapegoating one party isn't fair.