Woman denied health insurance coverage after being raped
This kind of outrageous behavior from the insurance industry must be stopped. It’s strange to hear people express their fear of the government being involved in health care when we see the abuses byt the insurance industry. Private insurance companies care about profits – that’s it.
Christina Turner was drugged and raped by two men in 2002. After taking anti-HIV drugs prescribed by her doctor as a preventative measure, Turner was denied health insurance. The HIV drugs, Turner was told, raised too many health questions for her insurer.
Follow the link and watch the video. It’s stunning that we’ve been allowing this stuff to happen in this country.
Yes! Reform is necessary. Open the competition up for health insurance so they will not be able to price fix. They should answer to appeal boards possibly as well for claim and patient denial. Tort reform is an absolute must! Workers comp and other personal injury insurances already have set values on damages to person and parts. All or nothing Medicaid coverage should go as well. 100% eligibility with graduated copays based on ability to pay is a good idea. End the pharmaceutical wrangling and shell games with the fda involving patent floating for name brand manufacturers. Clearer open defined relationships with universities/public funds and drug development and money involvements. Draw back military expeditures to other countries with small military expeditures and huge health care spending (obviously we are paying for their health care) Prosecute the medicare fraudulent claims more seriously. These are all simpler measures that would pay off tremendously with much less debt and hassle and keeps gov bureaucrats feeling important while not destroying our excellent level of health care delivery.
But Solieman, therein lies the err of your ways. Such measures you list would indeed make a world of difference in savings and efficiency. Of course, those concepts are anethema to a bloated budget and reek of responsibility and good stewardship, which are qualities not highly prized by those possessing the means to implement the needed change.
I do not understand as radical and libertarian as my views typically seem I am advocating only a much less intrusive form of government controls yet still having it much more involved than the current reforms being pushed. It seems I am departing from the stereotypical views that libs frequently are pegged with right? I am admitting that I don’t believe in total free market rule is best and should make it somewhat of a quality compromise for all those involved. The legislation would be able to be even written by our elected reps vs. lobbyists and special interest. I thought this was the new era of transparency and non-business as usual, non-partisan works that have been promised us. I may have missed the distinction at first between that insidiously perverse term bipartisan vs non-partisan…oh..!
Come on democrat and republican shills. I want you to weigh in. Help me understand your dogma.