Steamd

Before I go off into a rant, let me first describe to you my current health care situation. I’ve touched on this in the past so I won’t repeat myself too much.

I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis around March of this year. Anyone who knows about this disease will know that it’s an anti-immune disease with no real cure. The only thing you can do is take maintenance drugs that help keep flare-ups from happening. The problem is that the most popular drugs used to treat ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and other similar ailments can be quite expensive. There is a cheaper option but the side effects aren’t all that great.

I started off taking Asacol and purchased a three month supply while I still had insurance. Even then the cost after deductible was still quite high. I think I spent darn near $200 for the three month supply and that was even with a bulk discount. Recently, I started to run out of Asacol and started to shop around for more. What I found out shocked me. Without insurance, a one month supply (that’s 180 pills; 6 pills per day for 30 days) would cost me around $300. Simply put, I can’t afford that. $300 per month may be chump change to some folks but, to me, that’s a lot of money. I simply do not understand why any drug would cost this much. My only alternative was to either seek out a new insurance policy or buy a cheaper alternative drug.

So, off I went to look for another insurance policy. Unfortunately, due to my pre-existing condition, no insurance company in the state of Texas will cover me for my ulcerative colitis for at least a year. So much for that. Aside from that, the rates for insurance plans weren’t all that great. While the cheapest PPO plan was just over $100, the deductible left a lot to be desired: $10,000. Good plan if all you care about is coverage for cases when you get terminally ill or hurt but that’s about it. For me, a deductible around $2,500 would be ok, which brings the plan to around $162. That’s still pretty good but, even then, only provides 80% coverage plus deductible. Thing is that if I can’t get coverage for my ulcerative colitis then what’s the point? I’m pretty much paying $100 a month into something that is only good if the shit really hits the fan. Even then, there’s still no guarantee that the insurance company will cover me for every claim. I know this because I’ve been through it. I’ve had plenty of claims denied for various bullshit reasons.

I ended up deciding to buy a cheaper alternative to Asacol in the form of sulfasalazine. Even without insurance, I got a 3 month supply for around $30. While it does treat the disease as well as Asacol, it’s still not as good. The side effects leave a lot to be desired. First, it causes infertility, which means my wife and I definitely can’t have kids while I’m on the stuff. Second, I have found that it can cause some light numbness in my toes. That part has my wife kind of freaked out right now. There are some other mild side effects but those are my top two right now.

So I’m in a weird position where I have a disease that no insurance company will cover for a year and I can’t afford the outrageously expensive drugs for. For all the pundits out there, tell me, what should I do? Am I supposed to just grin and bear it like a good little American? Or do I hope for change in the system that will allow me some relief from the shitty business practices that health insurance companies hammer average citizens with every single day? I’d much rather go with the later option.

Sigh! That’s a lot off my shoulders! Now on with my rant…

A lot about health care has been said by those on the far-right and when I hear it my head just wants to explode. Much of it is just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. Ironically, that exactly what the far-right says, that’s its all just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. To show you what I mean, I’ll be writing a multi-part series of posts based on Ann Coulter’s recent series called Liberal Lies About National Health Care.

In the first part of Ann’s series, Ann starts right off with commentary on her first point:

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

Umm…duh?

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Ironically, President Obama touched on this very thing in his recent speech to Congress:

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition.  Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies.  In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company.  Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.

I would presume that this means he’s well aware of the government restrictions that disallow insurance companies from providing interstate coverage. But, quite frankly, that is but a small percentage of the overall bigger problem with insurance companies. More on that later.

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

While I will admit that many Democrats, including Obama, were for a single-payer system at one time, that is simply not the case now. Why? Well, I’ll let Obama explain it:

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone.  On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches.  But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.  Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.  And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

Nope. Nothing about making it a total government takeover of the health care system. Besides, doing so in a down economy would be extremely stupid, if not futile.

(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.

Again, I’ll let Obama explain this one:

…if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices.  If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage.  If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage.  We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.  Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.  As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage.  This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance.  It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance.  And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

Gee, Ann, that doesn’t sound at all like government-provided health care. Sounds more like a health care fair where the government gets a little kickback fee for bringing the insurance companies new customers. As for your cable plan analogy, I akin this to being like the digital box that replaces the old antenna ears. While it may not be cable television, it’s still better than nothing.

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”

In his speech, Obama mentioned a story about a man who died due to lack of treatment:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about.  They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

For which Coulter replies:

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

So, basically, what you’re saying is that a health care insurance company’s ability to make a profit and please their stockholders is more important that doing the moral, right thing? Am I getting this right? Seems to me that they could find a much better business model that doesn’t require screwing over people’s health to protect the bottom line.

If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.

What does government regulation have to do with an insurance company’s ability to accept or deny a claim? Nothing. The government doesn’t make those decisions, the insurance companies do. And when it comes to the acceptance or denial of those claim, no, the customer has no choice. While you can appeal any denial of a claim, good luck getting it appealed with any expediency. Insurance companies are practically worse that the very government that you bitch about, Ann!

(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in theTimes.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”

Umm…Ann…I can’t get full coverage from any insurance company right now. Thus, I can’t simply tell an insurance company that “I’m taking my business elsewhere”. Pre-existing condition limitations are the very “basic consumer protections” Obama was talking about and I welcome it. Telling customers that they aren’t covered due to a pre-existing condition is a shitty business practice plain and simple. So much for your hamburger analogy.

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

Bullshit. Blue Cross Blue Shield is available in just about every state, including Texas, and insures more than 100,000,000 collectively. They aren’t exactly a microscopic size company. So why would they not cover pre-existing conditions? Because just about every health insurance company follows this practice. Not because of government regulations, though I will admit that it might play but a fraction of the reason. No, I think the real reason is that it cuts down on the number of claims paid out in a huge way thus boosting the bottom line and satisfying an ever greedy stock market.

Show me a health insurance company that is in danger of being in the red. Most publicly traded insurance companies are highly profitable and, quite frankly, will deny coverage to anyone if they can get away with it if it means maintaining Wall Street expectations.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Are “liberals” really all that evil for wanting to inject fairness and more competition into the system? Or is the “status quo” still the better way? Ask yourself a question: With all that has been happening in the financial markets, would you allow a company to invest and barter your health as stock on Wall Street?

Tags: coulter, healthcare, lies
Permalink

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 at 10:00 pm and is filed under Politics, Rants. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Related posts:

1. Republicans Heckle Disabled Woman in Wheelchair at Town Meeting I think what the guy says in this video pretty...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.