# Health care horror story #13848732 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 26, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612 "2009-12-26T08:01:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/81 "2009-12-27T14:49:50Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > If you suspect you have any reason to believe another insurer might not cover you as a new policy holder, you will stay where you are, unless you are forced out. To the best of my understanding, that’s only something to worry about if you have self-coverage. If you’re employed at a company that has health insurance coverage, then pre-existing conditions are not an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/82 "2009-12-27T14:55:52Z")
Ferret, to change insurance would mean going to all new doctors and hospitals in that network, right in the middle of critical care, that alone would be a reason not to consider that. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/83 "2009-12-27T14:57:24Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Assuming the child was actually covered under the policy and all of that, the insurance company wanted your friend to provide to them the information they didn’t have so they would understand why the baby needed the extra care. Or do you just assume that the big company insurance is evil but the big company hospital couldn’t possibly have made a mistake in billing? Why do you assume the insurance company _isn’t_ trying to get out of paying the bills? The insurance company is the only party here with a motivation to deny care, and in this case it’s a big motivation with lots of dollar signs attached. Why are you assuming these bills are being denied due to a _lack_ of information? > [@](#): > > Because its a baybee. Birthin’ babies is the only thing you can do that you can get everyone else to pay for with little to no complaint. No matter who you are, whether or not you can pay for it, whether you would be a decent parent, whether you have serious genetic illnesses and/or have produced previous babies with them. You don’t even have to stop drinking, taking drugs and/or abusing your previous kids! Except that the parents in the OP _are not_ irresponsible and did nothing to trigger this problem. The purpose of insurance is (or at least it used to be) to cover you for unforeseen/unanticipated disasters. This is certainly one. One again, you completely fail to understand the purpose of insurance. > [@](#): > > Seriously tho, I just don’t understand why it is that society thinks it’s ok to force everyone to pay for extraordinary care on the one in 1000 chance that this baby would have a decent life. Such as Juliana Wetmore (“the girl without a face”) - millions of dollars in surgery so far, paid for by taxpayers. Since we don’t know, specifically, what is wrong with the child in question there is no way to know what the odds are of a “decent life”. It could be the child requires some very expensive operations but once they are done the problem is fixed and the child will require no more additional care above and beyond the norm. Or the child might require constant, chronic care. We don’t know. As usual, **curlcoast** , you assume the absolute worst case scenario. Of course, you tend to do that even when the facts contradict your imaginings, so why would a lack of facts stop you? > [@](#): > > - fine, but why force me to pay for your choices? Why do you force the taxpayers to pay for your monthly disability check? That’s what always amazes me - so are so quick to condemn people on any kind of public benefit, or even those who cost a private insurance company money, yet every month you accept a government check without batting an eyelash. You are one amazing hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/84 "2009-12-27T15:11:39Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > Ferret, to change insurance would mean going to all new doctors and hospitals in that network, right in the middle of critical care, that alone would be a reason not to consider that. Not necessarily. Many insurance companies cover the same hospitals/medical centers. It would be a disruption but perhaps not as big of one as you might think. At any rate, **casdave** seemed to be speaking in the general sense, what with the talk about shackling the labor force to their current jobs, etc., rather than about this specific case. ---
**Author:** ![Batfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Batfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batfish)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/85 "2009-12-27T15:42:13Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > IMO healthcare is a service and a luxury, not a “right.” Would you mind listing what you do consider “rights”? Are government services that benefit some portion of the populace but paid for by all taxpayers limited to “rights” only? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/86 "2009-12-27T15:48:27Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > To the best of my understanding, that’s only something to worry about if you have self-coverage. If you’re employed at a company that has health insurance coverage, then pre-existing conditions are not an issue. When I was in graduate school in the US, we were required to take the insurance chosen by the university, which changed every year. Every year the new insurer rejected any claim that could be considered linked to a pre-existing condition, including but not limited to diabetes, pregnancy and childbirth. Maybe it counted as self-coverage even though we could neither choose another supplier nor generally opt out of that one. I know one person who was allowed to opt out, as his Canadian insurance was considered adequate; mine wasn’t, because its description of covering “everything that’s considered non-elective in Spain” wasn’t detailed enough (the whole insurance policy took only two pages). It seems to be the policy of American insurers to always reject every claim. I had a couple, and both times a phone call managed to get it approved, but holy shit what a pain in the ass! ---
**Author:** ![Cort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Cort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cort)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/87 "2009-12-27T15:59:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > She was born because her parents don’t believe in abortion - fine, but why force me to pay for your choices? And I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who don’t believe gimps like you should be allowed to suck sweet, sweet tax dollars out of the Government’s tit. Will you be repaying Uncle Sam in deference to their wishes, or will you just launch headlong into several dozen posts stuffed with avoidance, non sequiturs and special pleading like you usually do and hope everyone just forgets about your staggering hypocrisy? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/88 "2009-12-27T16:12:40Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > As far as the debate about aborting this baby, which would have been too late term for that legally, no one has thought of the third and best option? Let the baby be born normally and receive normal care. Now if it dies because of problems you have not run up all these bills, and you also have not aborted anything. > > If God wants the baby to live you have given that opportunity, there is the best answer to this whole debate over the baby, and no one thought about that? No one need feel bad about whatever happens, no one is broke or needing lawyers, and no one has an abortion either, which is also an added cost. It would all be done at that covered hospital, and there is the elegant solution to this. First of all, we’re not talking about an “it”, we’re talking about a human being. It is considered rude, even in cases of ambiguous gender, to refer to a person as an “it”. Of course, it _does_ make it easier to kill a human being when you refer to that person as an “it”, perhaps that is one of the reasons that calling someone an “it” is offensive. Second, refusal to treat a medical problem in a newborn can be grounds for criminal neglect charges. Indeed, medical personnel have been prosecuted for doing precisely that. The law forbids hospitals from withholding treatment based solely on ability to pay, which is basically what you’re proposing here. So you’re asking the medical team to risk criminal prosecution in this scenario. Third, the “no one need feel bad about whatever happens” TOTALLY ignores the fact that the parents involved will have their child die. They are going to feel bad about this, no two ways about it. Fourth - childbirth costs more than an abortion. So it’s still going to cost somebody money. So… I fail to see how this “solution” is in any way “elegant”. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/89 "2009-12-27T16:13:47Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > To the best of my understanding, that’s only something to worry about if you have self-coverage. If you’re employed at a company that has health insurance coverage, then pre-existing conditions are not an issue. Nope, that is not how it works. The rules are a bit complicated, but yes, the pre-existing clause can nab you even through employer coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/90 "2009-12-27T17:06:02Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > One thing the liberals all forget, rather conveniently I feel. > > Lack of universal heatlhcare reduces market flexibility, workers cannot move from one employer to another without careful consideration of the total package. I think you mean conservatives conveniently forget this. I’m a liberal, and I have mentioned the same issue a few times here. It’s one of the arguments I use to support my position that UHC is good for the economy. As it is now, there are people who are virtual slaves to their jobs because they cannot change jobs without losing health insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/91 "2009-12-27T17:07:59Z")
> [@ntucker](#): > > I guess I could take the capitalist approach and vote with my dollars by buying my own insurance instead of taking the limited options my employer gives me (or hey I could find a new job! Yeah, what a sensible thing to have tied to healthcare). But that is of course very expensive due to the inherently non-free-market nature of healthcare that the libertarian zealots like to ignore. That’s what we do, and we’re far from wealthy. The HSA/catastrophic insurance combo is entirely affordable, and allows you to be in total control of your health care spending. It’s not for everyone, but works great for the average, healthy family. And it is cheaper for us than our employer-offered insurance, which didn’t cover what we needed anyway. I’m no libertarian zealot, but it does no good to ignore that there are affordable ways to maintain your healthcare spending and protect yourself from a medical bill tragedy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/92 "2009-12-27T17:17:59Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > As far as the debate about aborting this baby, which would have been too late term for that legally, no one has thought of the third and best option? Let the baby be born normally and receive normal care. Now if it dies because of problems you have not run up all these bills, and you also have not aborted anything. > > If God wants the baby to live you have given that opportunity, there is the best answer to this whole debate over the baby, and no one thought about that? No one need feel bad about whatever happens, no one is broke or needing lawyers, and no one has an abortion either, which is also an added cost. It would all be done at that covered hospital, and there is the elegant solution to this. God doesn’t understand the US healthcare system. It’s too complicated. ---
**Author:** ![Indyellen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/indyellen/32/4176_2.png) [@Indyellen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indyellen)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/93 "2009-12-27T17:23:55Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Nope, that is not how it works. > > The rules are a bit complicated, but yes, the pre-existing clause can nab you even through employer coverage. That’s correct. The pre-existing clause works as follows: Say you have insurance through your employer. Due to these trying economic times, you are laid off. For any number of reasons, you can’t afford COBRA coverage (where you pay the full premium - which is generally _much_ higher than individual coverage), and/or can’t afford to _immediately_ pick up an individual policy. You are out of work (or not eligible for coverage thru your new employer) for 63 days (or longer). When you DO get coverage, you will have fallen into the pre-existng condition clause, and your new policy doesn’t have to pay SHIT for **12 months**. That’s how the pre-existing clause works. (I am a medical biller with 10+ years of experience.) ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/94 "2009-12-27T17:25:31Z")
That is what is so nice about my solution, even if the parents do not believe at all, it still allows the child to live if God wanted, really a win win deal. Meanwhile no one goes broke either nor do relatives and such have an abortion to look down on. Even if the couple likes abortion, I bet they have relatives that won’t. By having the baby and just providing normal care like say the baby would have gotten 50 years ago you can say you did try, and that the baby was just not viable. By the way a late term abortion like was suggested since not legal here would also NOT be covered by insurance either. A normal delivery in the covered hospital is the way to go in all respects, there is no downside to doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/95 "2009-12-27T17:37:45Z")
Just let me know when and where the riot is going to be. I’ll be there. Unless I’m playing Halo online. Or American Idol is on. Or that one show with that hot chick. You know that one? Yeah man. ---
**Author:** ![LeeshaJoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/96 "2009-12-27T17:40:59Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > I think you mean conservatives conveniently forget this. I’m a liberal, and I have mentioned the same issue a few times here. It’s one of the arguments I use to support my position that UHC is good for the economy. > > As it is now, there are people who are virtual slaves to their jobs because they cannot change jobs without losing health insurance. I think **casdave** meant libertarians, not liberals. I could be wrong, tho. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/97 "2009-12-27T18:00:15Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > That is what is so nice about my solution, even if the parents do not believe at all, it still allows the child to live if God wanted, really a win win deal. Meanwhile no one goes broke either nor do relatives and such have an abortion to look down on. Even if the couple likes abortion, I bet they have relatives that won’t. > > By having the baby and just providing normal care like say the baby would have gotten 50 years ago you can say you did try, and that the baby was just not viable. By the way a late term abortion like was suggested since not legal here would also NOT be covered by insurance either. A normal delivery in the covered hospital is the way to go in all respects, there is no downside to doing that. Your posts and your sig line are both jokes, right? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/98 "2009-12-27T18:05:14Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Right, there would not have been a Universal Declaration of Human Rights but for the contribution of the former and children would still be down the mines today but for the latter. Utterly provincial nonsense. I never said that. My point was that many people would not prefer an ugly or disabled child given the choice. That isn’t to say there weren’t any beautiful people working on the UDHR or superathletes trying to ban child labor. It means that a person’s worth, effect on the world and identity doesn’t begin and end with short term emotional effects or social status. But I think that as we develop better and better fertility treatments and genetic tests, that is what parents are going to select for. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/99 "2009-12-27T18:24:32Z")
Ah, sorry, you see we don’t have this libertarian stuff, not in the right wing manner that you Americans have. We do have a liberal party, but you lot would probably complain they are too socialist. The name tags can be confusing, what you call left wing, it to us very right wing, Obama is not even slightly socialist, not by our standards, even historically we have not had anything as right wing as Obama, and as for the Bush lot - they are what we would describe as right wing nationalists - what we might regard as getting toward extemist. So, yes I used the term wrongly, I meant Libertarian - I think, which is right wing to us. Even so, if I were a business person, and I wanted labour market flexibility, I would do something about your healthcare system, I would make individuals pay through taxation rather than have companies pay for it through extortionate and hopelessly inefficient unregulated insurance systems. This would take a direct burden from business, and make business start ups easier and more able to attract talent especially during the critical start up phase. I imagine that UHC would actually cost more, there is likely to be a large unmet demand, however once implemented it would be unthinkable to get rid of it, and the actual increase would be cheaper per head of population that it is now. If citizens want it, why should business carry the taxation burden, and why should they pay for the insurance? Business does not directly benefit from medical insurance, and yet it pays the bills, its just an added direct cost - surely it should be paid through general taxation. Yes if course the money ultimately does come from trade, but it seems to me to be huge burden on innovation and labour market flexibility. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612/100 "2009-12-27T18:31:55Z")
The thing is, ‘Middle America’ sees taxation as ‘stealing’. Sure, we all want our infrastructure and services; but we don’t want to pay for them! People say they’re better at handling money than the government. In reality, they’ll just spend the money on ATVs and big screen plasma TVs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-horror-story-13848732/522612.md?page=6)