Monday, March 22, 2010

Just Askin'

In CA, all drivers must be both licensed and protected with automobile insurance: it's the law. However, I pay a monthly fee, called "uninsured motorist" coverage, to protect me from motorists who are not insured. Thus, in spite of the law, MY insurance has to pay for HIS/HER failure to comply with the law. If neither party is insured, the public pays for the costs of whatever may befall the unlicensed driver and/or the uninsured motorist, including medical costs, property damage, and funerals.

Rather than taking a step forward, we have nailed one foot to the ground and will continue to go around and around and around, giving the illusion of making progress, but staying in the same place we've always been. The people aren't going to continue to pay for their own medical coverage -- and pick up the tab for those who refuse to purchase medical insurance. The medical institutions aren't going to continue to operate if they have to continue to provide services for those patients who do not have insurance. The doctors aren't going to continue to see patients who refuse to purchase insurance when the law clearly states that every American will have medical insurance. Who's going to defend the doctors, the medical facilities, and the insurance companies when the lawsuits clog the courts because medical services are denied to individuals who do not have insurance?

A person who does not have a valid driver's license still drives, and a person who does not have automobile insurance still drives an uninsured vehicle, so why does anyone believe for even a moment that everyone will purchase medical insurance because it's the law?

2 comments:

John said...

You make a lot of valid points, and I would agree that in this one area the new bill signed into law will likely fail.

However, in many areas this law will be greatly beneficial. For example, if I came back to America and got a job, without this new law I would be denied insurance by any reputable insurance company. The law addresses that and makes it illegal for my employer's (or a third party) insurance company from denying me coverage simply because I have pre-existing conditions.

I've also had friends who were denied coverage during procedures and had their coverage dropped the moment procedures were done by insurance companies. That is now illegal to do-- you pay for insurance for most of your life and don't need it, then when you do need it, they drop you because you become too expensive. Well, no longer. That is a huge positive to those who get AIDS, HIV, cancer, have strokes/heart attacks, etc., or any other "expensive" treatments.

Lastly, you think you have really good coverage and don't read the fine print, which says you have a one million or five million dollar lifetime cap. Then you get cancer. One series of treatments and operations can wipe out your insurance maximum easily (these are expensive treatments and doctor's appointments) and the insurance company can drop you as you have reached your lifetime cap at, say, age 40. And then, because you have an existing (even if in remission) condition, no other insurer will take you on... so you have to live the remaining 20-40 years of your life without insurance and hoping to hell the cancer doesn't come back. That is now illegal for insurance companies to do.

Sort of like COBRA or the increases to children's medical coverages, which the Republicans passed against much public and Democrat opposition but turned out to be a huge boon to society and things that most people can't live without today (I know I used COBRA twice to keep my insurance coverage active so I didn't lose coverage during transitions between jobs/locations), this bill is not perfect and will need tweaking over the next years as loopholes are found and exploits are discovered. But people like me will benefit a great deal from it initially and many will be thankful when their insurance company is not allowed to drop them in the future.

Liza said...

And I, too, have already benefited from COBRA, even though it has been very costly to do so.

So, yes, I see the advantages to change that you have clearly outlined as beneficial to every potentially ill individual, and I agree that these changes are necessary and too long coming.

But what about the chronic scofflaw, the person who simply ignores the law? Is that person going to continue to bring down the entire system when medical facilities and personnel are stressed to the max with the new patient loads ... and the uninsured are still flooding the ERs?

Is there going to be a process for denying service for a person who breaks the law and has no insurance? Hell, no: not when a person's health or life are on the line! Knowing that to be a fact has led us to the point we already occupy: the current "health system" cannot care for the volume of patients needing care because the bottom layer of the system, the uninsured, is bleeding it dry.

*husto: an expression of frustration taking the place of "shit."