View Story | 131 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
It's insane until you realize it's all about money and profits.
The truth is managed care is inherently bad for human beings.
When corporations make money by denying treatment there's something wrong.
Greetings from Deep Space!
by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:13:03 AM PDT
to "give the go-ahead" with the procedure knowing that the child would not live to see the procedure done. I hope the CEO's of Cigna enjoyed their nice christmas bonuses earned by letting a young girl die.
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB
by meatwad420 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:21:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Insurance is the proper model for something exceptional, unusual and rare.
Example: Everybody (for the sake of argument) has fire insurance. The vast majority of people do not have fires, yet the model of paying a relatively small amount to essentially hedge the bet is reasonable. And it makes sense for the insurance provider to check carefully and deny payment if, for instance, it turns out the fire was set intentionally or something.
Healthcare is something that everybody needs on an ongoing basis. Insurance is not the right model even if the for-profit aspects, ludicrous executive salaries, etc., were taken out of the equation.
The insurance industry needs to get their heads out of their asses and start phasing "healthcare" out of their plans for the future. They still have car, fire, accident, life and other forms of insurance to sell. You would think they would be as relieved to be out of situations like this one Cigna is in now that is bringing them nothing but billions in bad PR.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
by Xan on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:34:54 AM PDT
I think you're spot-on with regards to insurance being the wrong model. As much as I hate to say it (because it's been twisted to become a bad term), "Managed Care" is really what we should have.
"Care", in that we should be focusing on more that simply reacting to health "events." Care implies, to me, a more holistic approach to health. This includes pre-emptive checks, vaccinations, the provision of advice, and the availability of health information from venues that aren't your GP's office.
"Managed", in that we respect the fact that we live in a world and exist in a system with limited resources, in terms of finances and availability (of donations, staffing, equipment). The system should provide the best care it can, while operating at a level that the public is willing to pay for (through taxation). No public system can offer any treatment in the world for free to all citizens - no system is that well-funded. But all systems should - and don't, sadly - work to do the best good they can under the circumstance they have, and to agitate for better circumstances so that can do more.
AT&T offers exciting work for recent graduates in computer science. Pick up the phone, call your mom, and ask for an application.
by Scipio on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:49:29 AM PDT
that the first HMOs were so to us on. And I remember for the first few years, they were really terrific. I still think the underlying idea is sound, it just needs to be in a not-for-profit, preferably single payer environment.
Economic -5.00 Social -5.49 http://politicalcompass.org/
by Swordsmith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:55:56 AM PDT
that the HMO model was perverted to create profits.
Let's get some Democracy for America
by murphy on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:39:00 AM PDT
is what was done to us, so we'd buy into it. Honestly, what did we do before HMO's? I don't even remember...
I, too, am sick and tired of the word "insurance"--as others have rightfully noted again and again, health insurance does not equal health care.
We cannot let ourselves be sold on changes to "plans", especially ones that involve mandates, that we buy different brands of the same old garbage. It does nothing but screw us over and make corporations rich.
Great diary, Doc, thank you for the update. Keep those calls, emails, and faxes flowing. Don't rest on your laurels now, we have to keep the pressure ON.
On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place
by o the umanity on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:24:20 PM PDT
When I see new "health care" plans put forth by politicians, all they seem to talk about is "insurance".
We don't need more Junk Insurance, which enriches corporations, and gives the bare illusion to the Political Class that somehow we are "covered" when it comes to health care.
Junk Insurance leads to Murder by Spreadsheet and often, bankruptcy. That is our current lot, no matter how well off we might seem at the moment. We are just a targetfor corporate looting, and when that medical diagnosis comes in, all our money will go the insurance companies,which will cut us lose when we are impoverished and chronically ill. Those who think otherwise are living in a fool's paradise.
My new cri de coeur: Remember Nataline! Because this is a war--corporations have made it so--we are dying, and Nataline's fate could be yours or mine.
Remember Nataline.
by means are the ends on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:06:29 AM PDT
Cigna upped my monthy rate $400 in the last two years.
From $600 a month PPO which they eliminated to force me into a $693 a month HMO, that jumps to $1,000 in January. For me alone, an individual.
Which I can no longer afford. So basically, Cigna is pulling only a slightly different trick from the denied transplant:
"If your annoying health problems cut into our billion dollar profit: go away, or get dead."
by judybrowni on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:32:16 AM PDT
Your premiums are "cheap" compared to many other states. Even so, if your rates increase the same each year, with the $307.00 increase in '08, five years from now, on January 1, 2013, your premium will be $2,535.00 per month -- $30,420.00 a year. Imagine... that's more than many people earn a year.
And that's not even mentioning the coverage you'll be denied under your current plan.
It may be 47+ million without insurance today, but five years from now, what will it be? Double? Triple?
And another bad thing is we're paying approximately the same as you for this year per month.... BUT WE HAVE EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE. WTF?
A Leader Without Followers Is Just A Guy Taking A Walk
by gooderservice on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25:23 PM PDT
for an individual?
I beg to differ, although yes, it's $200 less per month than a Cobra plan I was offered ten years ago.
Still I'd doubt $1,000 per month for an individual is on the cheap end of the scale in any state.
But this $1,000 monthly premium also doesn't cover another $500 in monthly treatments I need, which I pay for out of pocket.
And also wouldn't cover a transplant, should I need one, apparently, or any other very pricey treatment Cigna would deign to cover.
by judybrowni on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:53:01 PM PDT
I forgot the "er" on the end. And by that I meant, before employment status changed in my home, I was paying around $1,500.00 a month for single coverage with a high deductible, plus having to pay either 60% or 70% of everything up to a certain amount, after paying the deductible.
by gooderservice on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:01:13 PM PDT
for COBRA coverage from a large computer company in 1987.
That 1987 coverage offered CAT and MRI scans, bypasses, stents, and reasonable length hospital stays.
Eighteen months total would have cost about $1,000 total.
by SingleVoter on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:37:45 PM PDT
And 20 years of Republican rule, later. . .
I was offered Cobra coverage 10 years ago for the laughable sum of $1,200 a month (laughable, since I was out of work.)
The $1,000 bump here isn't even Cobra, just business as usual for Cigna.
by judybrowni on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:56:21 PM PDT
Because this is war and nothing less. The only way we will prevail over these bastards is all out war. They had their chance to negotiate in 1993 and they declared war on us.
Take. No. Prisoners.
Death to the oppressors--kill the health insurance companies.
Well Dayum! The Fat Lady just sang her tits right off!
by homogenius on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:38:18 AM PDT
"Surrendering and fearful: that's the face of the Democratic Party. It's how they show they're not weak." -- Glenn Greenwald
by expatjourno on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:11:52 AM PDT
by means are the ends on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:08:47 PM PDT
It is a cry of the heart, because it is heartbreaking to any person of conscience.
But it's also a war cry for all of us who are "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore"!
by homogenius on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:26:47 PM PDT
and is what I have argued for years. You can only insure against "fortuities". Things that you have no idea of whether or not they're going to happen.
We all know for certain that we're going to need health care. Women will need mammograms and pap smears, men will need prostrate exams and care, kids need vaccinations, everyone needs years physicals and treatment for colds etc. Technically, on the classic insurance model, these aren't insurable interests, because they're sure to happen.
That's why we need universal care.
A better model would be to allow people to buy an umbrella or "excess"health insurance plan that would incept above $3 or $4 million if the individual wanted to purchase.
by DMiller on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:22:50 AM PDT
and therefore would not be relieved to be out of the healthcare insurance business. They can handle a little bad PR for that kind of profit.
by Fallon on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:11:14 AM PDT
by o the umanity on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:27:53 PM PDT
because insurance companies and drug companies have too much money, power and influence in Washington, DC, and some of our politicians believe that the way to get them to give up their power is to ask them nicely.
We do not have proper care because the political courage to make that happen does not exist in our government. That is the sad truth.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:31:13 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 131 comments