Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Healthy Tuesday

Tonight's topic: Health care reform would prohibit insurance providers from denying people coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions. Say for example you had two penises, four balls, and walked around loopsided, and the likelihood of you sitting on your genitals by mistake, was deemed more of a health risk than that to the average person in the eyes of the health care insurance industry who would be liable for the medical expenses. Under the new ground rules, it would be illegal for health care insurers to deny you coverage based on a pre-existing, and subsequently tagging specific genes as high risk in their hidden data banks would be a moot point. No more work for the health insurer's shadow divisions, and that might even be a good thing.

I personally don't feel it's 100 percent fair that health care insurance providers are mandated to cover people with serious pre-existing conditions through diseases that have a proven track record of relapsing, however, in the bigger picture, it's all a backlash in reaction to the health industry seedy practice of frisking a patient's original application to uncover techical errors and renage on their obligations after the patient is diagnosed with a serious illness. The patient failed to disclose that he/she had a pimple on their okole, etc. Therefore, we are sad to inform you that your policy is null and void, and well, you're on your own. That having been said, a health industry expert noted, "What's keeping a person from belatedly applying for health insurance only after he/she has been diagnosed with a serious illness that requires expensive medical treatment?" Well, I guess health insurers should be held liable for the tab of catasthrophic illnesses only after the 6th month into an individual's policy, or something la dat.


Brad Farless said...

Funny you should mention that. Just earlier today I was having a fit over an article I read where a woman was denied health insurance because she had the pre-existing "condition" of... rape. Yup. She was raped and sought medical attention including counseling and anti-HIV preventative medication. Based on that, she was told she couldn't receive health insurance coverage.

Here's a link to the article:


RONW said...

Brad- there are many cases out there just as ridiculous. The most extreme is when a health insurer revokes coverage on a technicality even though it's obvious they'll only have to reinstate the policy later, but then drag their feet in hopes that the patient will expire in the interim, and more than a few do.

Brad Farless said...

Things like this are getting swept under the rug during the debates of whether or not the US should have Universal Health Care.

RONW said...

Brad- the health insurance companies are spending a million a day to lobby legislators, and that may be a factor. Btw, I've never heard of a single health insurer filing for bankruptcy.

Rowena said...

Now while I cannot say that Italy's UHC is without some flaws, if they had a dog-eat-dog system like you guys do right now, I might already have died. I am not being un-serious.

For that reason alone I would be stoopid to move back "home". Enough to read the example that Brad gave to make me want to hurl.

RONW said...

Rowena- that's why I like the idea of a "gov't option" which is the most effect way to shake up the health insurance industry, all in kahoots with each other.