Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilet

[American Horse]

Yes, they do. And they have a specific set of guidelines (actuaries) based upon an applicant's health history which they use to calculate the risk. I posted that link earlier in another thread, and I'll be damned if I can find it again. So that is their starting point. You don't just call up Blue Cross and say HEY, I want some health insurance, so send me a sample policy I can look at. THEY will tell YOU (the applicant) how THEY will proceed, and it first involves a lot of invasive medical questions, some of which you might need to prove.

They will provide you with all the pertinent information you need to make a decision. You should get a list of doctors or providers who are in their network of providers. I think once more that I should point out that if folks went to a commercial insurance agent that they will be provided with everything in the way of information about the policy being offered for sale that they need to decide. The truth of this assertion can be verified very easily: call a local commercial agent, state that you are considering sitting down with one of their agents or their "dedicated" agent for health insurance policies and then ask the question - "will I be able to examine a policy or a document that provides all the information contained in a policy?" My own experience was that the dedicated agent was able and willing to not only proviide all the pertinent information but took time to explain it in great detail.

I've always gotten a preview of the policy, and I've also gotten a copy of the policy which I could read and accept or reject. I have had to provide facts about my medical history, but they are about the same as I answer when I first visit a new physician. Would a question like "do you now smoke marijauna?" be an invasive question? To some it would; to others it would not. One can not prove a negative. Anything required by the company should be in a person's medical record, which would be positive information, not negative; IE there is no entry in a persons medical record that says Mr. Smith does not have cancer. That's ridiculous. A person with a pre-existing cancer which has not yet been diagnosed would be accepted for insurance, and if and when it came up later it would be treated.

It's nonsense that insurance company re-write rules UNLESS the rules change in the favor of the insured, IE a newly mandated treatment or advances are added. I've had a policy be removed from availability and therefore I was de-enrolled, but the new policy was more inclusive at about the same price. That happened so that the insurance company could comply with new federal or state law making my previous policy obsolete.

Edit: If Insurance companies capriciously changed the terms of their contract with the policy owner, state insurance commissions would jump on them and their ability to sell insurance of any kind in that state would be in jeopardy. Also politicians in Washington would have everything they need to haul them up before a house or senate committee and make an example of them. Instead all we hear from our politicians is propaganda, meaning their version of "reality" without substantiation.

 

[xsited1]

Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilet

They probably got pregnant while in a bed to begin with. To prevent this from happening in the future, we need bed control now.

 

[Gunny]

Well, if they keep closing hospitals here because they go under for unpaid emergency room visits by the uninsured, we may get there yet even if nothing new is introduced in Washington.

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

 

[MaggieMae]

A brain tumor makes you eligible for Medicaid. Any other stupid questions?

You have to qualify for Medicaid based on your income, which usually is dirt poor.


Any other stupid responses?

I haven't given you any stupid responses, because unlike you, I know something about Medicaid billing practices. The presence of a chronic and/or life-threatening illness like a brain tumor qualifies you for Medicaid, if only because of its potential to MAKE you dirt poor with medical costs. I personally know a boy whose parents each have excellent private medical insurance through their respective employers, and who ALSO gets Medicaid because he has cerebral palsy. This is just by way of an example.

I know it doesn't make as sensational a story as old people having to sell their houses and live under an overpass to buy medication, but the United States as it is just refuses to be the heartless death regime you'd like it to be. Sorry.

You are such a liar. I challenge you to find ANYTHING here that qualifies an individual for brain surgery unless that person meets the income eligibility requirements under Medicaid.

Medicaid

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, if they keep closing hospitals here because they go under for unpaid emergency room visits by the uninsured, we may get there yet even if nothing new is introduced in Washington.

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

Treating illegals at hospitals isn't covered by any law. It's a code of ethics among hospitals.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Please... you guys should go spend a day or two in an ER in a poor neighborhood, like South Chicago. Then you'll see how fucked up our healthcare system is.

ROFL... Yeah, cause it's the healthcare on the South-side of Chicago that's fucked the place up... Everything else is just WONDERFUL.

Are ya kiddin' here Dave?

You look hard enough, you'll find horror stories with every healthcare system in the world.

LOL... SERIOUSLY? You had the WHOLE WORLD TO SITE and you chose the geometric center of the ass-hole of the universe... to highlight the shitty healthcare in that area.

The thing is Britain is oft' cited as a model of what the Left wants to do for American healthcare; citing an inherent problem in that system is hardly cherry picking issues.


BUT! In effect, the Democrats (Ideological Left) are wanting to provide equal outcomes of healthcare by lowering healthcare standards, in effect making all of US Healthcare equal to that found in South Chicago...

Now from where I'm sitting... there's: NO SALE!

 

[paperview]

Well, if they keep closing hospitals here because they go under for unpaid emergency room visits by the uninsured, we may get there yet even if nothing new is introduced in Washington.

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

Treating illegals at hospitals isn't covered by any law. It's a code of ethics among hospitals.

From what I read, it is against the law:

"Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can’t even ask for a patient’s immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, if they keep closing hospitals here because they go under for unpaid emergency room visits by the uninsured, we may get there yet even if nothing new is introduced in Washington.

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

Treating illegals at hospitals isn't covered by any law. It's a code of ethics among hospitals.

Uh... patently False!

http://www.medlaw.com/healthlaw/EMTALA/statute/emergency-medical-treatme.shtml

 

[Emma]

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

Treating illegals at hospitals isn't covered by any law. It's a code of ethics among hospitals.

Uh... patently False!

MedLaw.com :: Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act -- EMTALA Full Text

That requires medical screening for an emergency medical condition without regard to the patient's ability to pay. If one doesn't exist, the hospital is not legally required to treat.

 

[Emma]

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

Treating illegals at hospitals isn't covered by any law. It's a code of ethics among hospitals.

From what I read, it is against the law:

"Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can’t even ask for a patient’s immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment."

I don't think EMTALA directly addresses immigration status, but by asking for that they'd be in violation of determining ability to pay prior to screening and necessary treatment.

 

[MaggieMae]

Please... you guys should go spend a day or two in an ER in a poor neighborhood, like South Chicago. Then you'll see how fucked up our healthcare system is.

ROFL... Yeah, cause it's the healthcare on the South-side of Chicago that's fucked the place up... Everything else is just WONDERFUL.

Are ya kiddin' here Dave?

You look hard enough, you'll find horror stories with every healthcare system in the world.

LOL... SERIOUSLY? You had the WHOLE WORLD TO SITE and you chose the geometric center of the ass-hole of the universe... to highlight the shitty healthcare in that area.
I hope you know you're making the case that poor neighborhoods get poor health care, simply because they're poor. How is that fair?

The thing is Britain is oft' cited as a model of what the Left wants to do for American healthcare; citing an inherent problem in that system is hardly cherry picking issues.
No, they don't cite the British model. You people do. In fact there has been NO proposal that attempts to model a US health care program after any other country's. If there is ever a universal plan put together, it would attempt to take what works from those that exist elsewhere and avoid installing any of the pitfalls.

BUT! In effect, the Democrats (Ideological Left) are wanting to provide equal outcomes of healthcare by lowering healthcare standards, in effect making all of US Healthcare equal to that found in South Chicago...
If that's the way your peabrain interprets it, you're even loonier than I thought.

Now from where I'm sitting... there's: NO SALE!

I'll be sure to pass that along. Everyone of importance has been waiting with bated breath for YOUR decision.
[Wink wink]

 

[MaggieMae]

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

Treating illegals at hospitals isn't covered by any law. It's a code of ethics among hospitals.

From what I read, it is against the law:

"Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can’t even ask for a patient’s immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment."

That's good. I'm glad I was wrong.

 

[midcan5]

Seriously.... Is this really what Democrats want? Or do they care?

Curious that the United Kingdom is ahead of us in Infant Mortality? Do you ever stop and think? We are number 180 the UK 193 and the best are at 224. You people are simply partisan fools, nothing more.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

 

[American Horse]

The reason life insurance is so cheap is because it's insuring only one thing. Your death.

Yes, and a death is a simple claim but certain to make. The only uncertainty is when will death occur? Health insurance claims are somewhat more complex but unlike death, uncertain. But they are both actuarially calculable. My point is the health insurance rates would be much lower had the US gvt been less interfering. I can recall a monthly premium of $15.00 per month for a primary and a dependent in 1966 for a $500 deductible on a group plan. The fact that there is nothing in the present latest interference by gvt in health insurance about tort reform suggests the implication that the tort lawyer bar owns one of the political parties.

But by cheap for Life Insurance, I mean the low price by a (here un-named) company Rated A+ (Superior) by A.M. Best: a policy for a $100,000 death benefit, 20 year level term, for a 68 year old male is just $170 per month.

Extend that out: 170 x 12 months annually x 20 years equals $40,800. They are betting that this 68 year old man will live to age 88. Once they enter into the "contract" it is binding for them but not for the insured; They cannot cancel, but the insured can.

Had the US government gotten as involved in life insurance as it did in health insurance the price of life insurance would have risen to a point of being priced out of affordability by many more people than it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously.... Is this really what Democrats want? Or do they care?

Curious that the United Kingdom is ahead of us in Infant Mortality? Do you ever stop and think? We are number 180 the UK 193 and the best are at 224. You people are simply partisan fools, nothing more.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

And as I keep saying, infant mortality rates have even less to do with the quality of the healthcare system in industrialized nations than life expectancy does . . . unless you'd like to consider the fact that OUR infant mortality rate reflects the fact that WE, unlike other nations, make more of an effort to save high-risk pregnancies in the first place, and don't just write off low birth weight babies as stillborn. I call that a plus in favor of the US system over Europe, but maybe that's because I don't consider babies expendable for the sake of convenience.

 

[Chris]

Seriously.... Is this really what Democrats want? Or do they care?

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets | Mail Online

I love the lying on the right.

The Brits have socialized medicine where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors work for the government. NO ONE is promoting that here.

A national health insurance option is not socialized medicine. In fact Britian is one of the few countries in the world that have true government ownership of healthcare as opposed to national health insurance. But the difference is too complicated for Republicans to wrap their little brains around. Better to complain about "gubbermint takeover of healthcare" than do a little research!

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously.... Is this really what Democrats want? Or do they care?

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets | Mail Online

I love the lying on the right.

The Brits have socialized medicine where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors work for the government. NO ONE is promoting that here.

A national health insurance option is not socialized medicine. In fact Britian is one of the few countries in the world that have true government ownership of healthcare as opposed to national health insurance. But the difference is too complicated for Republicans to wrap their little brains around. Better to complain about "gubbermint takeover of healthcare" than do a little research!

Care to show exactly how government run healthcare forces prices down?

 

[Chris]

Seriously.... Is this really what Democrats want? Or do they care?

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets | Mail Online

I love the lying on the right.

The Brits have socialized medicine where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors work for the government. NO ONE is promoting that here.

A national health insurance option is not socialized medicine. In fact Britian is one of the few countries in the world that have true government ownership of healthcare as opposed to national health insurance. But the difference is too complicated for Republicans to wrap their little brains around. Better to complain about "gubbermint takeover of healthcare" than do a little research!

Care to show exactly how government run healthcare forces prices down?

Care to do a little research outside of Glenn Beck?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

 

[Luissa]

Well, if they keep closing hospitals here because they go under for unpaid emergency room visits by the uninsured, we may get there yet even if nothing new is introduced in Washington.

Try deporting your illegals when and where found and not letting them suck off a financial infrastructure they don't support; yet, cannot be turned away from. You make laws that are unrealistic and unsustainable then want the rest of the country to bail out the debacle you created for yourselves.

maybe we should solve the larger problem here. These people would not be coming here if they didn't think they could get a job. We hire them and until we stop the problem is not going to go away.

 

[veritas]

Seriously.... Is this really what Democrats want? Or do they care?

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets | Mail Online

I love the lying on the right.

The Brits have socialized medicine where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors work for the government. NO ONE is promoting that here.

A national health insurance option is not socialized medicine. In fact Britian is one of the few countries in the world that have true government ownership of healthcare as opposed to national health insurance. But the difference is too complicated for Republicans to wrap their little brains around. Better to complain about "gubbermint takeover of healthcare" than do a little research!

We DO have the VA, though. 'Spose the the antis want to get rid of that????