I wrote this on Microsoft Word, and sometimes it doesn't translate well onto the AG Forums. Sorry for any errors. Hopefully it will be readable:
I have been rejected by 2 insurance companies so far because of pre-existing conditions. One condition is a bladder condition, and the other is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Without proper medication, it is impossible for me to be a productive member of society. If I don't have the bladder meds, I spend about 10-15 minutes of every hour in the bathroom. The OCD is more of an anxiety problem. Before being medicated, I could not even talk to members of my own family without having panic attacks, cold sweats, and extreme anxiety. Nevermind being able to talk in front of strangers or groups of people. With medication, it suppresses my anxiety. I was able to complete student teaching and will hopefully have a teaching job soon.
Without insurance, these medications cost about $550 a month. At Target I make about $900 a month. Pile on basic health insurance (let's say $50/month), student loans ($100), car insurance ($70/month), gas (about $90), adds up to $860 a month. I also have a cat which I pay for and have other basic expenses like car repairs, clothes, shoes, entertainment, etc. So I'm losing somewhere between $100-$300 a month. And with the crappy economy, it's impossible to find another job around here. The only reason I got the job at Target was because my brother worked there. I live with my parents for free. Imagine people who don't get that privilege. Someone in my situation, living on their own is probably losing a couple thousand or more per month.
Without these medications, which I cannot afford, I am practically handicapped. In the end, it will cost more for society to take care of me if I don't have these medications. Without them, I would not be able to hold a steady job. I can't be social without one med, and the other med will force me to take lots of time away from the company through bathroom breaks. Without medication, I would be on unemployment, welfare, or need public housing to survive. So is it better for society to pay for my medications now, or to support my unemployed ass later on? The answer is clearly to help someone now.
Medications help fix problems with people, which allows them to become more productive members of society. So if society has to come together to provide health care for every individual, it will save much more money in the future.
A privately controlled industry favors the rich. If I was rich, I could easily pay for the medications by myself. A public option will help those who simply cannot afford insurance, medical care, or medications. The American Dream tells us that through hard work, we can succeed. But after all the work I do, I can barely make it. I work my ass off for the measly paycheck I get. I paid thousands of dollars to student teach. I paid to work. Where is my reward? Where is my American Dream? That's all it is: a dream. It's not real. Hard work is not rewarded. What is rewarded is corruption, thievery, knowing people on the inside, and having a rich background. It's time for a major change.
If you don't believe in a public option, tell me why insurance companies should be allowed to deny me coverage for conditions that I cannot control. Last time I checked, insurance was to cover my medical conditions, not to turn me away because I have medical conditions.
It is a business and while we might not like it they do have to be able to make money. Would it make sense if you owned a shop for you to sell your merchandise for less money than you paid for it? You would go broke and then not be able to help anyone. Many people take it for granted that you can insure just about anything here in the US, but in some countries car insurance is just paying people to make sure someone else doesn't take off with your vehicle.
I think it is very unfair that you shouldn't get an insurance claim over pre-existing conditions. I'm really sorry about that. What God damned right do they have to deny you?
So should they be forced to insure people? Just give them money with no hope of ever getting anything comparable in return? Good way to go bankrupt. I don't want to sound heartless, but you can't just look at it from one side.
It is a business and while we might not like it they do have to be able to make money.
Don't give me that crap. Insurance is one of the most lucrative businesses in the world. They make tens of billions of dollars each year.
A problem I have with thelistman's argument is that it is not in the interest of the insurance company to look out for the welfare of society by ensuring the citizens within it are able to be productive. But I do agree he should get treatment, simply because premiums are massively inflated due to a mostly monopolised insurance market.
Thank goodness for an account that demonstrates that arguments about public health system does not revolve around welfare exploitation and sponging off the backs of the deserving rich.
Fact is that money is not an equal-opportunity beast, otherwise there would be no compelling need to discuss socialism as an economic model (regardless of just how socialist models actaully are- please do not draw false assumptions from this statement or I will pimpsmac- I mean get annoyed).
A problem I have with thelistman's argument is that it is not in the interest of the insurance company to look out for the welfare of society by ensuring the citizens within it are able to be productive.
This is correct. That would be because in the US, most companies appear driven on a profit > service basis, as opposed to the other way around, which is what an increasing number of companies (notably banks) would try to have us believe from their advertising.
In fact I noted that the "exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions" (which doesn't make sense to me at all) was one of the things slated to change in Obama's proposed health system reform>
Fact is that money is not an equal-opportunity beast, otherwise there would be no compelling need to discuss socialism as an economic model (regardless of just how socialist models actaully are- please do not draw false assumptions from this statement or I will pimpsmac- I mean get annoyed).
Make no mistake Strop, socialism does not advocate equality of opportunity, but unconditional equality. Equality of opportunity is a liberal sentiment, even though more moderate socialists seem to have incorporated it into their doctrine.
Denial is based off of the sheer cost of the meds. $500 is nothing to throw away.
If they gave it to you, they would have to give it to the next person who asks for $500 a month, and so on. It may seem both sad and bad, but the simple fact is: the insurance companies would be losing more than gaining.
Make a public option, and now we (the taxpayers) have to pay for you, when you won't ever benefit any of us directly. We would be paying not only for you, but for the millions who also have $200+ a month medical bills. Add that up and it goes far beyond a small tax. That's also not incorporating transplants, reconstructive surgery, etc., that are also extremely expensive.
Bottom line, don't expect me to pay for someone I'll never even meet. I would rather rot in a prison cell.
If I met you, that would be different.
PS: I don't have any insurance, and between me, my mom, my dad, and my dogs we fork out around $300+ a month. So don't say I'm being insensitive, because I'm in a similar rut as you, except I don't expect people to pay for me.
It is a business and while we might not like it they do have to be able to make money. Would it make sense if you owned a shop for you to sell your merchandise for less money than you paid for it? You would go broke and then not be able to help anyone. Many people take it for granted that you can insure just about anything here in the US, but in some countries car insurance is just paying people to make sure someone else doesn't take off with your vehicle.
the insurance companies would be losing more than gaining
True, they can't just hemmorage money by making their drugs/services too cheap.
But you know what they can do?
Neither make or lose money. And that is the beauty of public health care In fact, I do believe most public companies in Canada make money rather than lose it, some of that money is used by the company to improve itself, and the remainder is returned to the taxpayer.
A problem I have with thelistman's argument is that it is not in the interest of the insurance company to look out for the welfare of society by ensuring the citizens within it are able to be productive.
In Canada, basic health care is an undeniable right. W00t! A private company expected to appease it's shareholders by making as much profit as possible cannot be successful while also working towards the benefit of society.
Bottom line, don't expect me to pay for someone I'll never even meet. I would rather rot in a prison cell.
There are countries where everyone else wants to pay for you to be cared for, all they expect is the same in return. Human's are social animals, we gather in societies to benefit one another. You aren't expected to be a loner and not rely on others.
Usually people against public health care don't want to pay for all these unhealthy people who don't care about their bodies, who they feel better than.
But then you have mental illness, no matter how many vegetables you eat or how well you take care of yourself it can strike at any time and affect anyone regardless of age or health. You can no longer say you are better than the 400 pound woman and shouldn't have to pay for her, you are on equal footing. You have just as high a chance of getting schizophrenia as her.
Listman... the basic fundamental object that revolves around everything in life is MONEY. Insurance companies deny you coverage for your pre-existing conditions, because they don't want to lose money. That's why you wanted to have health insurance right? To cover your expenses for having OCD and bladder problems, right?
This is what all health insurance companies will do: They will cover you for every single problem BUT your current problems.
What will the new health care reform do? Force the insurance companies to cover ALL patients whether they have pre-existing conditions or not, because all health insurance company leaders are corrupt, evil, hardases (yes, I meant to say that misspelled).
I'm guessing since you have a job, you are old enough to vote, or maybe will be old enough to vote in a November off-year election. If you want fair health care coverage, vote for a U.S. senator that will support this plan, plus any state senators that will support lowering costs of medicine and health care.
Anyone else that's old enough to vote, vote for senators that support this, so guys like Listman can get coverage he deserves.
I didn't know insurance companies could deny you for having OCD. Anyways, what you said makes sense, but also as balerion said, if they were to cover everyone for everything, then they wouldn't be able to make any money and then people would lose jobs and stock prices go down. As for favoring the rich, you could say that for everything simply because if your rich you can get anything you need without a problem.
There are countries where everyone else wants to pay for you to be cared for, all they expect is the same in return. Human's are social animals, we gather in societies to benefit one another. You aren't expected to be a loner and not rely on others.
Usually people against public health care don't want to pay for all these unhealthy people who don't care about their bodies, who they feel better than.
But then you have mental illness, no matter how many vegetables you eat or how well you take care of yourself it can strike at any time and affect anyone regardless of age or health. You can no longer say you are better than the 400 pound woman and shouldn't have to pay for her, you are on equal footing. You have just as high a chance of getting schizophrenia as her.
I rely on my friends, not people in New York who can't pay for their heart meds when they weigh 500 pounds.
If that lady gets schizophrenia, it's her problem. If I get it, it's mine. Not my neighbors, or the guy in New York. It's mine, and mine alone. I don't expect nor want people to help me, unless I know them personally.
If they don't want to pay for me, then great, I'm not expecting anything of them. If they want to make a small donation, cool. I have a few dollars to help me. I would be grateful, but I still wouldn't expect anything of them. It's their money, and they have the right to do with it as they please.
In Canada, basic health care is an undeniable right. W00t!
It's the same in England, however that's not really the crux of the argument here.
Bottom line, don't expect me to pay for someone I'll never even meet. I would rather rot in a prison cell.
A prison cell paid for by taxes, accomodating people you have never met? One of those? Also, don't complain about having to pay for others, that is a right exclusive to bill payers, ie., your parents.
The widely held American belief that people should earn whatever they want I find quite disgusting. It implies those that can't afford to do so as being feckless or lazy and therefore shouldn't be given any help. That is something I would hope would have been left behind by the Edwardian age and Liberal reforms. If by 2009 Americans haven't realised that, I've lost faith in their ability to rationalise.
