Health Reform

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I was thinking about quoting the song, but he beat me to it.

To some people, it is already too late for me to die young.
So, GIMME MY FREE HEALTH CARE!!!111oneoneone!!!!

[OldGuy]

Please, all you who feel good about dying young, go for it.

It's already too late for me to die young, so I won't.

And please note, this is supposed to be HEALTH CARE reform, but it's really heath insurance reform, 'cause nobody has the guts to take on the AMA.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

Please, all you who feel good about dying young, go for it.

It's already too late for me to die young, so I won't.

And please note, this is supposed to be HEALTH CARE reform, but it's really heath insurance reform, 'cause nobody has the guts to take on the AMA.

Takes guts to take on AARP too. Political guts, i.e.

[FormLetter]

Guts or a death wish?

[Edward]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

Please, all you who feel good about dying young, go for it.

It's already too late for me to die young, so I won't.

And please note, this is supposed to be HEALTH CARE reform, but it's really heath insurance reform, 'cause nobody has the guts to take on the AMA.

Wish I had the link handy, but just to echo your thoughts about the AMA.. they're the top (health care?) lobbying group in Washington. #2-4 are pharmaceuticals like Bayer, and 2 others. I think AHIP is #5, but I forget.

[Edit]
Found link...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32014652.../#.T3x7udkZnYU

[Rockhound]

Originally Posted by Rex Ryan

inability to carve out mental health,

Why in the world should an insurer be allowed to carve those out? Mental health issues, are just as real as physical health issues. Why should someone whose clinical issue is a chemical imbalance in the brain be treated differently than one who'se chemistry is wrong in their pituitary gland?

[FormLetter]

Maybe pituitary gland issues should be able to be carved out.

If the insurer is willing, and policyholder is willing, why not?

[erosewater]

Generally agree that if both parties are willing anything could be carved out, but I see major problems with disclosure and needing to be a doctor to understand the product being sold. I could see a shady company selling a product that carved out the most basic of benefits by describing them in accurate but highly technical/misleading ways. And then you've got to write regulations on how an insurer needs to describe a product, requirements for translating medical terminology into everyday terms. I would only want caveat emptor to go so far with something like health insurance.

[FormLetter]

Transparency [in the interest of stifling or avoiding fraud] is one of the few valid instances for government intervention in otherwise purely voluntary transactions in my opinion.

[Italian Halibut]

Originally Posted by Rockhound

Why in the world should an insurer be allowed to carve those out? Mental health issues, are just as real as physical health issues. Why should someone whose clinical issue is a chemical imbalance in the brain be treated differently than one who'se chemistry is wrong in their pituitary gland?

The fraud is in the "non-chemical" interventions...therapist's couch three times a week for an hour at a time ain't too cheap and is of relatively questionable effectiveness...