In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
its important to live somewhere where you are treated like a human
True, but its also important to be near support networks of people and family. Me leaving dumps the burden of caring for my parents in their older age on my siblings.
Also, despite what all of our feel-good media would have people believe, becoming a permanent resident in Canada is actually quite difficult for the average person.
On March 08 2017 23:24 Plansix wrote: My wife has a long term condition, but treatable that causes her chronic pain. However, without health insurance there is no way we could afford to treat it, even being firmly in the middle class. If the ACA was completely repealed, she might not be able to get health insurance outside of our state. We already have to fight tooth and nail with our current provider. I really don’t feel like I should have to beg health care providers to cover my wife because she happened to lose the long term condition lottery.
So I find the claims that liberals are being hysterical pretty off the mark. If not insulting. If someone wants to remove peoples protections and benefits, don’t expect them to be polite in their response. Or that their responses will not be emotional.
seeking a clarification: this is one of those preexisting condition cases, correct? it existed before you had insurance?
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
ah, one of those tricky conditions, those are quite a nuisance indeed. I have flammer syndrome and some anxiety disorders myself. well, gl in dealing with it, and you have my sympathies.
its important to live somewhere where you are treated like a human
True, but its also important to be near support networks of people and family. Me leaving dumps the burden of caring for my parents in their older age on my siblings.
Also, despite what all of our feel-good media would have people believe, becoming a permanent resident in Canada is actually quite difficult for the average person.
We never had any delusions that it would be easy or something that we could do on a whim. But we talk about it a lot more often.
We live in interesting times.
Edit: Thanks zlefin. We have it mostly under control. I’m just tired of worrying that the Republicans are going to pull the rug out of the entire health care industry.
its important to live somewhere where you are treated like a human
True, but its also important to be near support networks of people and family. Me leaving dumps the burden of caring for my parents in their older age on my siblings.
Also, despite what all of our feel-good media would have people believe, becoming a permanent resident in Canada is actually quite difficult for the average person.
We never had any delusions that it would be easy or something that we could do on a whim. But we talk about it a lot more often.
We live in interesting times.
Edit: Thanks zlefin. We have it mostly under control. I’m just tired of worrying that the Republicans are going to pull the rug out of the entire health care industry.
you're welcome. at least you live in MA, so you should be ok regardless.
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life?
I recommend Norway. The social security literally chase you down until you take the money they owe you :D
Yes, but right now, I think there are better places. Fracking has damaged the all important oil-industry, so the unemployment rate is rising. The housing market is also terribly inflated, even in smaller cities. Don't come without having a very nice job as engineer, doctor or the like.
Great place to study, though. Norwegians love Americans, and speak English very well. Norwegian is not too hard to learn either, easier than German and French imo.
Admittedly I came with (for) a very nice job and I do struggle with the language because you guys speak english so well there is no incentive.
To have lived in four European countries, I can say that almost whatever your job, Norway is in many ways the nicest. There are housing bubble everywhere (in proportion of salaries, housing in Oslo is a piece of cake compared to Stockholm, Paris and London) and unemployment is still super low.
Republicans in the House of Representatives are “moving a little bit too quickly” to pass the first wave of legislation intended to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Tom Cotton said Wednesday morning.
GOP members in the House rolled out their proposal Monday evening and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he expects to pass the bill to the Senate by the end of March. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he hopes to pass an Affordable Care Act repeal bill by the time his chamber adjourns for its Easter recess.
But Cotton (R-Ark.) cautioned against moving too quickly with the healthcare legislation. A more deliberate process, he said, will help keep Republicans from making the types of mistakes he accused Democrats of making when they passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
“I think we’re moving a little bit too quickly on health care reform. This is a big issue,” Cotton said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “We’re going to live with health care reform we pass forever or until it's changed in the far-distant future. So I don't think we need to introduce legislation on Monday and have one change to amend it on Wednesday.”
Already, the healthcare legislation has run into stiff opposition from the GOP’s conservative wing, many of whom feel the proposal rolled out Monday keeps in place too many of the Affordable Care Act provisions they oppose. Powerful conservative groups, including FreedomWorks, The Heritage Foundation and The Club for Growth have all come out in opposition to the bill.
In the Senate, four Republican members have come out against the bill, unhappy over its cuts to Medicare. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has, like Cotton, expressed an interest in slowing down the process and ensuring that it is done correctly. “We're not going to be judged by when we did it but how we did it,” he told reporters on Tuesday.
Cotton said that despite the new bill’s relative brevity compared to the Affordable Care Act, it is still written in highly technical language and lawmakers will require more time to fully grasp and understand it. The bill “has some good measures,” Cotton said, but without more time to digest it, “it's hard to say right now where one stands on any particular provision or especially the bill as a whole.”
“I do not want to move in a hasty fashion. I want to get it right. I don't want to get it fast. And the senate certainly will not just be jammed with whatever the House sends over here,” he said. “We’ve only had this bill in public for 36 hours and to try to rush it through this week and then vote on it within the next few weeks really does harken back to some of the problems that Obamacare was created under.”
On March 08 2017 06:21 Mohdoo wrote: Its really freaking weird to be reminded that there are still republicans out there who subscribe to this idea that not everyone gets healthcare and that you have to deserve it by some weird metric. So ancient. The idea that American citizens should die from things our medicine can fix is just sad. We are so much better than that.
I hate being reminded that the debate on health care is so poisoned that nobody can talk about costs, implementation, and structure without resorting to the most base emotional arguments. Some kind of holy grail religious devotion that includes an individual mandate and massive entitlement spending amounting to huge portions of GDP/federal budget. Yeah, you don't like private market plans, we get it. But don't pretend the other choice is this mixed system that kills the good parts of having a market and keeps all the bad parts of having intense government regulatory involvement. But yeah, every time the subject comes up, it's all Republicans wanna kill grandma and the homeless. Absolutely pathetic.
That's because 50,000 people each year *actually are* dying to treatable medical ailments that they can't get because they don't have and can't afford health insurance.
If this were the 1860s and universal health care had never been tried, all of this debate over how to get everybody insurance would be sensible. Except this is 2017, this is an easily solved problem, it's been solved for half a century or more in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Those countries have universal healthcare AND they spend less per capita AND the quality of their healthcare is better on average than those on Medicare/Medicaid.
The only reason to not go for that solution is either complete ignorance about the current state of the world, or Social Darwininism (i.e. actually wanting those 50k people each year to die because they deserve it for being poor), or because those politicians are getting ridiculously wealthy off of the profits from those private insurance companies.
For all three of those reasons, the politicians that actively impede problem-solving deserve all of the spit and vinegar they get over killing grandma and the homeless.
Basically case in point of what I was talking about. It's worth talking like Mohdoo did because you're supposed to abandon logic and reason and go after illustrating and reillustrating the problem in purely emotional terms ... GOP thinks people should die, don't think people 'deserve' it. Yeah, no thanks. I see where the tide's going and Obamacare was a great plan to collapse the remaining good aspects of a partially working system, so this is probably all for naught long-term. But it is a useful lesson many Republicans will remember for times to come: the debate isn't worth having because hysteria precedes thought.
But don't the assumptions you would make regarding healthcare not results in everyone being covered? Its all a matter of defining your boundary conditions and then tweaking from there. My point is that a system that has aspects of "tough luck" regarding access to affordable healthcare is morally deficient. I am saying that this is of course always going to be a cost:benefit analysis for society as a whole. And I am also saying that people should not be dying as a direct or indirect result of not having coverage. My understanding is that you disagree with that.
Every perspective on healthcare is going to have a set of pros and cons. I am saying that a system which has "some people will die from not having affordable access to healthcare" is morally deficient. We should be starting from the premise that no one will die as a result of poor or inadequate coverage. Am I incorrect that you do not see that as a necessity?
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
I can pretty much move to any country I feel with my career, and my current company allows me to do so. We currently have offices in UK, Canada, and US. The reason for me not leaving is because that isn't going to make this country any better. It's like if I moved out of FL, then more super greedy politicians will take over - and I can't help to try and fight it.
Republican House leaders have spent months dodging questions about how they would replace the Affordable Care Act with a better law, and went so far as to hide the draft of their plan from other lawmakers. No wonder. The bill they released on Monday would kick millions of people off the coverage they currently have. So much for President Trump’s big campaign promise: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody” — with coverage that would be “much less expensive and much better.”
More than 20 million Americans gained health care coverage under the A.C.A., or Obamacare. Health experts say most would lose that coverage under the proposal.
Let’s start with Medicaid. Obamacare expanded the program to cover 11 million more poor Americans in 31 states and the District of Columbia. The Republican bill would end the expansion in 2020. Although people who sign up before 2020 under the expanded Medicaid program, which covers people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (about $33,900 for a family of four), would be allowed to stay on, many would be kicked off over time. The working poor tend to drop in and out of Medicaid because their incomes fluctuate, and the Republican plan would bar people who left the expanded program from going back in.
The bill would also, for the first time ever, apply a per-person limit on how much the federal government spends on Medicaid. This change could shift about $370 billion in health care costs over 10 years to state governments, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Many state governments, faced with limited budgets, would be forced to cut benefits or cover fewer people.
For people who buy insurance on federal or state-run health exchanges, the G.O.P. plan would greatly reduce the A.C.A.’s subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits. For example, a 40-year-old living in Raleigh, N.C., who earns $30,000 a year would receive $3,000 from the government to buy insurance, 32 percent less than under current law, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The bill would provide older people more generous subsidies — those over 60 get a subsidy of $4,000, or twice as much as 20-somethings — but insurers would be allowed to charge older people five times as much as younger people.
The plan would do away with the current mandate that requires nearly everybody to obtain insurance or pay a penalty. (Instead, insurers would be allowed to charge people who don’t maintain their insurance continuously 30 percent more for coverage.) But because the legislation would still require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, people would have a strong financial incentive to buy insurance only when they got sick — a sure way to destroy the insurance market.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, have railed against high premiums and deductibles for plans sold on the health exchanges, but that problem would only worsen under their proposal because insurers would almost certainly raise their prices as the pool of the insured shrank. Republican lawmakers seem to think that people who can’t afford insurance are simply irresponsible. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, for instance, told CNN that people should invest in their health care, “rather than getting that new iPhone.” Word to Mr. Chaffetz: Health insurance costs more than $18,000 a year for an average family; an iPhone costs a few hundred dollars.
While working people lose health care, the rich would come out winners. The bill would eliminate the taxes on businesses and individuals (people making more than $200,000 a year) who fund Obamacare. The tax cuts would total about $600 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
House committees will start considering the bill on Wednesday. Even if it passes the House, some Republican senators object to the Medicaid cuts and the Tea Party wing hates the idea of retaining any subsidies.
Republicans have been vowing to repeal the Affordable Care Act even before it became law in 2010. But they still haven’t come up with a workable replacement. Instead, the G.O.P.’s various factions are now haggling over just how many millions of Americans they are willing to harm.
The amazing part of that bill is how it makes no one happy. No one is happy with their plan and it may cost more than the ACA. It is truly astounding how bad it is.
On March 08 2017 06:21 Mohdoo wrote: Its really freaking weird to be reminded that there are still republicans out there who subscribe to this idea that not everyone gets healthcare and that you have to deserve it by some weird metric. So ancient. The idea that American citizens should die from things our medicine can fix is just sad. We are so much better than that.
I hate being reminded that the debate on health care is so poisoned that nobody can talk about costs, implementation, and structure without resorting to the most base emotional arguments. Some kind of holy grail religious devotion that includes an individual mandate and massive entitlement spending amounting to huge portions of GDP/federal budget. Yeah, you don't like private market plans, we get it. But don't pretend the other choice is this mixed system that kills the good parts of having a market and keeps all the bad parts of having intense government regulatory involvement. But yeah, every time the subject comes up, it's all Republicans wanna kill grandma and the homeless. Absolutely pathetic.
That's because 50,000 people each year *actually are* dying to treatable medical ailments that they can't get because they don't have and can't afford health insurance.
If this were the 1860s and universal health care had never been tried, all of this debate over how to get everybody insurance would be sensible. Except this is 2017, this is an easily solved problem, it's been solved for half a century or more in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Those countries have universal healthcare AND they spend less per capita AND the quality of their healthcare is better on average than those on Medicare/Medicaid.
The only reason to not go for that solution is either complete ignorance about the current state of the world, or Social Darwininism (i.e. actually wanting those 50k people each year to die because they deserve it for being poor), or because those politicians are getting ridiculously wealthy off of the profits from those private insurance companies.
For all three of those reasons, the politicians that actively impede problem-solving deserve all of the spit and vinegar they get over killing grandma and the homeless.
Basically case in point of what I was talking about. It's worth talking like Mohdoo did because you're supposed to abandon logic and reason and go after illustrating and reillustrating the problem in purely emotional terms ... GOP thinks people should die, don't think people 'deserve' it. Yeah, no thanks. I see where the tide's going and Obamacare was a great plan to collapse the remaining good aspects of a partially working system, so this is probably all for naught long-term. But it is a useful lesson many Republicans will remember for times to come: the debate isn't worth having because hysteria precedes thought.
But don't the assumptions you would make regarding healthcare not results in everyone being covered? Its all a matter of defining your boundary conditions and then tweaking from there. My point is that a system that has aspects of "tough luck" regarding access to affordable healthcare is morally deficient. I am saying that this is of course always going to be a cost:benefit analysis for society as a whole. And I am also saying that people should not be dying as a direct or indirect result of not having coverage. My understanding is that you disagree with that.
Every perspective on healthcare is going to have a set of pros and cons. I am saying that a system which has "some people will die from not having affordable access to healthcare" is morally deficient. We should be starting from the premise that no one will die as a result of poor or inadequate coverage. Am I incorrect that you do not see that as a necessity?
i'm a bit confused by your point here, because isn't it always the case that some people will die? there's a limited amount of money to go around, and not every treatment that exists can be covered. and isn't a lot of the dispute about what exactly should constitute "inadequate" coverage? there's a great many plausible standards one could reasonably apply to that. not having coverage doesn't mean you can't get health care, it means you pay out of pocket, which is generally unreasonably high, but that's another issue.
It seems like the disagreement is probably on a very finely detailed point.
On March 08 2017 06:21 Mohdoo wrote: Its really freaking weird to be reminded that there are still republicans out there who subscribe to this idea that not everyone gets healthcare and that you have to deserve it by some weird metric. So ancient. The idea that American citizens should die from things our medicine can fix is just sad. We are so much better than that.
I hate being reminded that the debate on health care is so poisoned that nobody can talk about costs, implementation, and structure without resorting to the most base emotional arguments. Some kind of holy grail religious devotion that includes an individual mandate and massive entitlement spending amounting to huge portions of GDP/federal budget. Yeah, you don't like private market plans, we get it. But don't pretend the other choice is this mixed system that kills the good parts of having a market and keeps all the bad parts of having intense government regulatory involvement. But yeah, every time the subject comes up, it's all Republicans wanna kill grandma and the homeless. Absolutely pathetic.
That's because 50,000 people each year *actually are* dying to treatable medical ailments that they can't get because they don't have and can't afford health insurance.
If this were the 1860s and universal health care had never been tried, all of this debate over how to get everybody insurance would be sensible. Except this is 2017, this is an easily solved problem, it's been solved for half a century or more in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Those countries have universal healthcare AND they spend less per capita AND the quality of their healthcare is better on average than those on Medicare/Medicaid.
The only reason to not go for that solution is either complete ignorance about the current state of the world, or Social Darwininism (i.e. actually wanting those 50k people each year to die because they deserve it for being poor), or because those politicians are getting ridiculously wealthy off of the profits from those private insurance companies.
For all three of those reasons, the politicians that actively impede problem-solving deserve all of the spit and vinegar they get over killing grandma and the homeless.
Basically case in point of what I was talking about. It's worth talking like Mohdoo did because you're supposed to abandon logic and reason and go after illustrating and reillustrating the problem in purely emotional terms ... GOP thinks people should die, don't think people 'deserve' it. Yeah, no thanks. I see where the tide's going and Obamacare was a great plan to collapse the remaining good aspects of a partially working system, so this is probably all for naught long-term. But it is a useful lesson many Republicans will remember for times to come: the debate isn't worth having because hysteria precedes thought.
But don't the assumptions you would make regarding healthcare not results in everyone being covered? Its all a matter of defining your boundary conditions and then tweaking from there. My point is that a system that has aspects of "tough luck" regarding access to affordable healthcare is morally deficient. I am saying that this is of course always going to be a cost:benefit analysis for society as a whole. And I am also saying that people should not be dying as a direct or indirect result of not having coverage. My understanding is that you disagree with that.
Every perspective on healthcare is going to have a set of pros and cons. I am saying that a system which has "some people will die from not having affordable access to healthcare" is morally deficient. We should be starting from the premise that no one will die as a result of poor or inadequate coverage. Am I incorrect that you do not see that as a necessity?
This assumes that healthcare is a thing that you either have or do not have. That is not how it works. Healthcare has diminishing returns, the question can only ever be how much you'll spend for how little improvement. No system ever could offer people sufficient access to healthcare for every value of sufficient.
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
We would if it wasn’t for my wife’s band and my family. But we talk about it a lot, since this country is sort of garbage and not improving.
On March 09 2017 00:22 dankobanana wrote: I have Chrons disease and ever since I was diagnosed I've been a part of online communities of people who share my illness for information and help. I have to say I've always felt great pitty for Americans who had to think about money that much while having a chronic disease. I would have never been able to be a productive part of society if we didnt have universal health care.
This is the other aspect of health care. If it is covered, you can be productive. If not, then you can’t get treatment and you seek alternative means for supporting yourself. That includes disability and section 8.
damn dude you went to great lengths to not name the condition but then you talk about getting a lawyer to argue for you about whether the condition is real. i have heard doctors tell me that they refer to fibromyalgia as "sad sack disease" amongst themselves in the office. must be rough.
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
We would if it wasn’t for my wife’s band and my family. But we talk about it a lot, since this country is sort of garbage and not improving.
On March 09 2017 00:22 dankobanana wrote: I have Chrons disease and ever since I was diagnosed I've been a part of online communities of people who share my illness for information and help. I have to say I've always felt great pitty for Americans who had to think about money that much while having a chronic disease. I would have never been able to be a productive part of society if we didnt have universal health care.
This is the other aspect of health care. If it is covered, you can be productive. If not, then you can’t get treatment and you seek alternative means for supporting yourself. That includes disability and section 8.
damn dude you went to great lengths to not name the condition but then you talk about getting a lawyer to argue for you about whether the condition is real. i have heard doctors tell me that they refer to fibromyalgia as "sad sack disease" amongst themselves in the office. must be rough.
Off the top of my head there are at least 3 other (named) diseases which it could plausible be - not to mention the all-encompassing box of "functional disease".
The director of the Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday that Republicans wouldn't use insurance coverage numbers as the ultimate metric for the success of the proposal to replace Obamacare.
On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Mark Halperin asked Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s OMB director, for a “range of estimate of how many fewer people will have health insurance” under House Republicans’ proposed Replacement for Obamacare.
“We’re looking at it in a different way, Mark, because insurance is not really the end goal here, is it?” Mulvaney responded. “It's one of the conservatives' – one of the Republicans' complaints about the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning: It was a great way to get insurance and a lousy way to actually be able to go to the doctor."
“So we’re choosing instead to look at what we think is more important to ordinary people: Can they afford to go to the doctor? And we are convinced it will be possible for more people to get better care at the doctor under this this plan than it was under Obamacare.”
That is a slightly different metric than the one set out by President Donald Trump to the Washington Post in January: “Insurance for everybody … Much less expensive and much better.”
Asked about that specific pledge Wednesday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, the White House’s point person for the health care overhaul, said “that’s certainly the goal.”
But Price specified, when asked about patients who stood to pay more out-of-pocket without Obamacare’s subsidies, that lowering the cost of coverage itself was a higher priority than the amount of assistance the government provided people to pay for it.
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
We would if it wasn’t for my wife’s band and my family. But we talk about it a lot, since this country is sort of garbage and not improving.
On March 09 2017 00:22 dankobanana wrote: I have Chrons disease and ever since I was diagnosed I've been a part of online communities of people who share my illness for information and help. I have to say I've always felt great pitty for Americans who had to think about money that much while having a chronic disease. I would have never been able to be a productive part of society if we didnt have universal health care.
This is the other aspect of health care. If it is covered, you can be productive. If not, then you can’t get treatment and you seek alternative means for supporting yourself. That includes disability and section 8.
damn dude you went to great lengths to not name the condition but then you talk about getting a lawyer to argue for you about whether the condition is real. i have heard doctors tell me that they refer to fibromyalgia as "sad sack disease" amongst themselves in the office. must be rough.
Off the top of my head there are at least 3 other (named) diseases which it could plausible be - not to mention the all-encompassing box of "functional disease".
i mostly was saying that it must be rough to constantly battle with doctors/insurance about whether your condition is "real"
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
We would if it wasn’t for my wife’s band and my family. But we talk about it a lot, since this country is sort of garbage and not improving.
On March 09 2017 00:22 dankobanana wrote: I have Chrons disease and ever since I was diagnosed I've been a part of online communities of people who share my illness for information and help. I have to say I've always felt great pitty for Americans who had to think about money that much while having a chronic disease. I would have never been able to be a productive part of society if we didnt have universal health care.
This is the other aspect of health care. If it is covered, you can be productive. If not, then you can’t get treatment and you seek alternative means for supporting yourself. That includes disability and section 8.
damn dude you went to great lengths to not name the condition but then you talk about getting a lawyer to argue for you about whether the condition is real. i have heard doctors tell me that they refer to fibromyalgia as "sad sack disease" amongst themselves in the office. must be rough.
Mostly it was to send a letter with a law office’s letter head to the health insurance provider. Luckily threatening to seek counsel was enough for them to stop asking for documentation.
They don’t care if it exists or not. It is just additional resistance to obtaining treatment. If they make it harder, my wife won’t go to the doctor as often. And then they don’t have to pay.
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
We would if it wasn’t for my wife’s band and my family. But we talk about it a lot, since this country is sort of garbage and not improving.
On March 09 2017 00:22 dankobanana wrote: I have Chrons disease and ever since I was diagnosed I've been a part of online communities of people who share my illness for information and help. I have to say I've always felt great pitty for Americans who had to think about money that much while having a chronic disease. I would have never been able to be a productive part of society if we didnt have universal health care.
This is the other aspect of health care. If it is covered, you can be productive. If not, then you can’t get treatment and you seek alternative means for supporting yourself. That includes disability and section 8.
damn dude you went to great lengths to not name the condition but then you talk about getting a lawyer to argue for you about whether the condition is real. i have heard doctors tell me that they refer to fibromyalgia as "sad sack disease" amongst themselves in the office. must be rough.
Off the top of my head there are at least 3 other (named) diseases which it could plausible be - not to mention the all-encompassing box of "functional disease".
i mostly was saying that it must be rough to constantly battle with doctors/insurance about whether your condition is "real"
We never have to fight with the doctor, but the insurance company cannot understand how the condition just “appeared”. AKA, why are we paying for this if this same doctor didn’t find this 10 years ago? clearly this is fraud or made up?
And we are in the good state for health insurance.
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
We would if it wasn’t for my wife’s band and my family. But we talk about it a lot, since this country is sort of garbage and not improving.
On March 09 2017 00:22 dankobanana wrote: I have Chrons disease and ever since I was diagnosed I've been a part of online communities of people who share my illness for information and help. I have to say I've always felt great pitty for Americans who had to think about money that much while having a chronic disease. I would have never been able to be a productive part of society if we didnt have universal health care.
This is the other aspect of health care. If it is covered, you can be productive. If not, then you can’t get treatment and you seek alternative means for supporting yourself. That includes disability and section 8.
damn dude you went to great lengths to not name the condition but then you talk about getting a lawyer to argue for you about whether the condition is real. i have heard doctors tell me that they refer to fibromyalgia as "sad sack disease" amongst themselves in the office. must be rough.
Mostly it was to send a letter with a law office’s letter head to the health insurance provider. Luckily threatening to seek counsel was enough for them to stop asking for documentation.
They don’t care if it exists or not. It is just additional resistance to obtaining treatment. If they make it harder, my wife won’t go to the doctor as often. And then they don’t have to pay.
No it did not. The condition was discovered about four years ago, but she likely suffered from it her entire life on different levels. It is manageable, but needs to be managed by her and her doctor. It is "preexisting" now, I guess. I am not at all confident we could obtain insurance outside of MA without the ACA in place.
To due life being life, she has switch employers a couple of times since we have been together. The quality of insurance and how willing they are to accept this condition as real varies. There were a couple times I considered getting at attorney to stop them from constantly demanding proof the condition exists.
why not just move to Canada or EU and live a better life? its what I dont get about Americans. The rest of the world exists and you can get a better and/or cheaper healthcare (or education) by just moving
We would if it wasn’t for my wife’s band and my family. But we talk about it a lot, since this country is sort of garbage and not improving.
On March 09 2017 00:22 dankobanana wrote: I have Chrons disease and ever since I was diagnosed I've been a part of online communities of people who share my illness for information and help. I have to say I've always felt great pitty for Americans who had to think about money that much while having a chronic disease. I would have never been able to be a productive part of society if we didnt have universal health care.
This is the other aspect of health care. If it is covered, you can be productive. If not, then you can’t get treatment and you seek alternative means for supporting yourself. That includes disability and section 8.
damn dude you went to great lengths to not name the condition but then you talk about getting a lawyer to argue for you about whether the condition is real. i have heard doctors tell me that they refer to fibromyalgia as "sad sack disease" amongst themselves in the office. must be rough.
Off the top of my head there are at least 3 other (named) diseases which it could plausible be - not to mention the all-encompassing box of "functional disease".
i mostly was saying that it must be rough to constantly battle with doctors/insurance about whether your condition is "real"
We never have to fight with the doctor, but the insurance company cannot understand how the condition just “appeared”. AKA, why are we paying for this if this same doctor didn’t find this 10 years ago? clearly this is fraud or made up?
And we are in the good state for health insurance.
That's the wonderful thing about having a proper mandated healthcare. The insurance provider never comes to me for something. Everything is handled by the care provider (be it doctor or hospital). If the insurance wants proof of something they bug the doctor who send them the bill. Not the customer.
EPT
