PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #41
Really? There's no difference between the Blues and, say, HealthExtras? You'll have to provide evidence for that.
While you're doing that, here's a little something for you to contemplate:
Cancer and the Affordable Care Act
1. No, every single detail of every insurers policies is subject to ObamaCare law.
No. If that were true, there'd be no differences between carriers or between the same carrier from state to state. There are. Whatever fantasy version of "government-run healthcare" you're entertaining, this is not that.
2. Did you not read this in your link:
"Beginning with plan years starting after July 1, 2011, insurance companies that deny payment for a treatment or service are required to conduct internal appeals at the patient's request within specific timelines:
Know what 'deny' means?
It means, among other things, that prior to the PPACA, insurers could refuse to cover an adult who'd been cancer-free for decades because of a childhood treatment for cancer.
They're not allowed to do that anymore.
Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?
Funny.
In post #25 I proved it, and here you are whining 'is not, is nooottttttt!'
And they cannot deny treatment...but can deny particular treatments.
And that was the point of the OP.
It is at the heart of Liberalism: no concern for lives lost.
What are the guidelines for denial ?
I know the Unaffordable Care Act pushes certain requirements for care (that drive up the costs).
What you are saying is that they can also deny care (so people can pay for things they don't want or need...and not get the things they want and need.....how left-wing).
Did I get that right ?
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
This is the government's explanation of the item....
"Nothing in the bill infringes upon you and your doctor's ability to make medical decisions. The National Health Benefits Advisory Council is not a "government committee" but is made up of providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, independent experts and representatives of government agencies. They will make recommendations about minimum standards of care and covered benefits that insurance companies have to offer- ensuring that everyone has a health plan that provides them with adequate coverage."
To my mind, this is not a complete denial...but a talking point.
BTW....this was originally in a WaPo article that has since 'disappeared' from the net:
"....slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.”
You can find it here: Downgrading American Medical Care