Omg…

It’s frightening to think of people with pre-existing conditions (or any medical condition), losing their health care. And to think many people in the U.S. actually believe right now, sitting at home with their families, that leaving their fate in the hands these for-profit companies is in their best interest.

It’s the biggest brainwashing of humanity since the people who argued slavery was good for the American people. Once upon a time, people argued the U.S. couldn’t live without slavery, it was in our best interests (including the best interest of the slaves themselves), and that the U.S. would crumble without such an important institution. And thousands and thousands of people believed it to be true.

Just like for-profit healthcare.

Where in truth, it’s only those with money survive.

Ya, go the ER. Where they don’t do chemotherapy, physical therapy, preventive life saving screening tests like mammograms, or give long term medications for crippling diseases like diabetes, MS, lupus, etc etc. That’s right. Go to the ER, where we have thousands flocking every night with things like strep throat, flus, chronic back pain, taking the doctor’s attention away from the patients who might be suffering with things like heart attacks.

I will never understand the mentality of those who like to say, so proudly “if someone needs healthcare in the U.S., they can just go to the ER”, as if all healthcare a person may need is available there, or that sending everyone to the ER with every disease–in effectively turning the ER into an over-priced and inefficient health clinic–is a good idea.

I don’t think people in the U.S. will ever understand how bad people who live on a middle class income have it here in the U.S. for health care, until they visit other first world countries…or pick up the phone and call the receptionist of doctor’s offices or hospital staff in another country and ask direct questions for themselves. “When a woman comes in and gives birth, how much does the family pay? If I need my appendix out suddenly, how long would I wait and what is the cost?”

But as it stands right now, most people are content living with the epic falsehood of human suffering: that while our system may not be perfect, it’s at least better than what they have in Europe or Canada…my God, those people have to wait there…

And they believe this, like an indoctrination—that leaving our fate in the hands of corporate money making machine, that has to spend money to keep you alive, making it in their best interest to let die the seriously ill, is somehow a good system for America.

It’s a great system until they or a loved one gets sick, of course,

which is the moment they discover this great healthcare all over America, is actually healthcare they can’t afford at all–

so in the end they don’t get what they need.

Like not feeding a child adequately,

inadequate healthcare kills.

Murdered, by denial of care.

People wait in Canada and Europe, but they’re going to get what they need. And they won’t lose their home or retirement fund either.

Call St. Paul’s Hospital in downtown Vancouver and ask for yourself 1-604-682-2344.

And I promise you, the wait time in the ER–where a person waiting for medical care is the most critical–is much lower than any ER in Los Angeles.

I admit, I have some problems with the healthcare law, mostly because it’s forcing people to pay for private insurance, which is basically a tax, but it’s a tax without the safeguards of a public program–so we’re being forced to hand over more money to the same people who don’t want to cover us when we get sick, companies who are not being held accountable to the people. But stopping people from being able to deny care because of pre-existing conditions, that’s obvious a good thing, but we have to take away the power of for-profit companies to be in charge of our fates.

People wait in Vancouver, but they’re going to get what they need.

We have to demand change while we still can.

Teddy

On Mar 19, 2012, at 6:38 PM, J wrote:

Health

Health Insurers: We’ll Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions If Health Mandate Is Repealed

By Guest Blogger posted from ThinkProgress Health on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:00 pm

Chief Justice John Roberts

Health insurers and supporters of the Obama administration’s health-care reform law are currently in the midst of drawing up possible contingency plans in case the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. The insurance industry argues that premiums are likely to skyrocket without the individual mandate in place to aid in pushing millions of new enrollees into the marketplace, as healthy people will be less likely to buy insurance, while insurers will still be required to sell policies to all applicants. In fact, a repeal of the individual mandate would increase insurance premiums by 25 percent, according to a study released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“The insurance reforms would have to change if the mandate were struck,” said Justine Handelman, vice president of legislative and regulatory policy for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association trade group.

Health-insurance officials say that if the mandate is repealed, “their first priority would be persuading members of Congress to repeal two of the law’s major insurance changes: a requirement to cover everyone regardless of his or her medical history, and limits on how much insurers can vary premiums based on age.” Their next step would be to “set rewards for people who purchase insurance voluntarily and sanction those who don’t.”

Other possible alternatives to the individual mandate that insurers are weighing:

– Penalize those who enroll outside of short annual windows; deny treatment for specific conditions, especially right after a policy is purchased

– Reward certain insurance buyers, such as offering much lower premiums for younger and healthier people

– Expand employers’ role in automatically enrolling employees for health insurance

– Urge credit-rating firms to use health-insurance status as a factor in determining individuals’ ratings

Although the mandate has been upheld in two appeals courts, it was struck down in a third. The Supreme Court hearings are scheduled to begin March 26, and an official ruling is expected to be delivered in June.