kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jan 8, 2014 18:40:21 GMT -5
I submit go for an annual breast thermography exam. If administered and read by competent people, it can detect breast cancer UP TO TEN YEARS sooner than a mammogram. By the time a mammogram can "see" cancer/a tumor (after all, it's only an x-ray) you are already in trouble. And you've been doused with years of radiation. No thanks. Thermography is non-invasive and non-radioactive. Too bad "the system" is so caught up in paying for its fancy breast machines that it won't see past the end of its nose to look at other methods. Flame Away. I don't think I flamed your first post, nor this one. Actually, MRI is one of the best methods to detect DCIS, and other small breast cancers. However, it's ridiculously expensive and not practical for routine care for 50% of the population. Also, there just aren't enough themography centers to do that sort of work... I'm surprised your insurance would pay for that (if it did?). We (as a society) have to balance the appropriate test for the appropriate number of people.
Agreed. But I also believe in the right to buck the system and not follow conventional medical advice - the topic of this thread. And no, my insurance will not pay for this (I use my medical spending account at work) - but they DO hound me relentlessly with robo calls and notes in my chart (I've seen them - I'm "red flagged" as non-compliant for mammography). Which I think is VERY interesting because they are being PAID to conduct one of the largest screening programs in the county - boys and girls, can you say "conflict of interest"?
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Jan 8, 2014 18:54:39 GMT -5
I don't think I flamed your first post, nor this one. Actually, MRI is one of the best methods to detect DCIS, and other small breast cancers. However, it's ridiculously expensive and not practical for routine care for 50% of the population. Also, there just aren't enough themography centers to do that sort of work... I'm surprised your insurance would pay for that (if it did?). We (as a society) have to balance the appropriate test for the appropriate number of people.
Agreed. But I also believe in the right to buck the system and not follow conventional medical advice - the topic of this thread. And no, my insurance will not pay for this (I use my medical spending account at work) - but they DO hound me relentlessly with robo calls and notes in my chart (I've seen them - I'm "red flagged" as non-compliant for mammography). Which I think is VERY interesting because they are being PAID to conduct one of the largest screening programs in the county - boys and girls, can you say "conflict of interest"? I see. You certainly have every right to do as you choose, and you sound like you are making an informed decision. I think that is all most medical professionals can ask of and hope for their patients. I don't see it as a conflict of interest - if every female in the US gets a mammogram(s) as recommended, the entire cost to society - as a whole - will be minimized. As in, the cost/benefit ratio between detecting the cancer earlier enough to treat it and sampling often enough to detect it - is in harmony. So, maybe they are paid to conduct the test, but they certainly aren't paid to treat it - and that costs a hell of a lot more.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jan 8, 2014 19:07:53 GMT -5
Agreed. But I also believe in the right to buck the system and not follow conventional medical advice - the topic of this thread. And no, my insurance will not pay for this (I use my medical spending account at work) - but they DO hound me relentlessly with robo calls and notes in my chart (I've seen them - I'm "red flagged" as non-compliant for mammography). Which I think is VERY interesting because they are being PAID to conduct one of the largest screening programs in the county - boys and girls, can you say "conflict of interest"? I see. You certainly have every right to do as you choose, and you sound like you are making an informed decision. I think that is all most medical professionals can ask of and hope for their patients. I don't see it as a conflict of interest - if every female in the US gets a mammogram(s) as recommended, the entire cost to society - as a whole - will be minimized. As in, the cost/benefit ratio between detecting the cancer earlier enough to treat it and sampling often enough to detect it - is in harmony. So, maybe they are paid to conduct the test, but they certainly aren't paid to treat it - and that costs a hell of a lot more. If every female in the US gets a mammogram as recommended (once a year starting at age 40), if she is not otherwise at risk for breast cancer (a VERY important caveat!), by the time she is 55 she will have actually INCREASED her risk for breast cancer by 15% (1% per year for every year she has the radioactive exam). That risk is no savings to society. No thanks, I'll forgo the radiation and do the things that are KNOWN to prevent breast cancer (keep my weight down, stay off of synthetic hormones, stay away from industrial chemicals in food/cleaning supplies/household furnishings/cosmetics, stay away from alcohol, get enough sleep, get enough exercise, not smoke, eat generous amounts of cruciferous vegetables, practice stress reduction). Oh, and do monthly self-exams and get an annual breast thermography exam, just in case . My body, my choice - regardless of someone-out-there-in-my-medical-group's judgmental decision to label me "non compliant." Do I get denied medical insurance now (lol)?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 8, 2014 19:33:43 GMT -5
Isn't it better for the government to make that decision instead of an insurance company? Depends on how much you trust the government to be competent, caring and capable. (I'm trying not to giggle while I type that.) Think about relying on the Postal Service or the IRS for decisions regarding your care.
With the government, who do you appeal to if they screw up? With an insurance company, at least you have the hope of getting different insurance or getting a higher authority involved if you're not happy. Not the case with the government.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 8, 2014 20:00:29 GMT -5
I have no problem with not forcing people to do certain things but then if their choices cause them serious health issues, I have problems with paying for their choices. I am totally on board with insurance telling you they aren't paying for your treatment because you took no steps to mediate your potential problem.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,883
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jan 8, 2014 20:07:54 GMT -5
I was thinking of someone more like mid's dad mich. Yes, you were technically AMA but in my eyes you were simply changing doctors which is your right.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,883
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jan 8, 2014 20:13:59 GMT -5
Isn't it better for the government to make that decision instead of an insurance company? Depends on how much you trust the government to be competent, caring and capable. (I'm trying not to giggle while I type that.) Think about relying on the Postal Service or the IRS for decisions regarding your care.
With the government, who do you appeal to if they screw up? With an insurance company, at least you have the hope of getting different insurance or getting a higher authority involved if you're not happy. Not the case with the government.
Medicare actually has a multi level appeals process. Cases can and do wind up in front of judges at the higher levels. If a denial is issued it is automatically forwarded onto the next appeals level. It's not perfect and I don't want a single payer system but there is an appeals process.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Jan 8, 2014 20:24:34 GMT -5
I stand by what I said about trusting the government more than the insurance companies.
I understand the giggles. I don't trust my government much either, but I trust the insurance companies even less.
It's a lot easier to keep an eye on a single payer than to attempt to keep an eye on the dozen or so health insurance providers that serve your area, but aren't necessarily on the short list of health insurance providers that your employer allows you to choose from. Being able to choose from this short list is an illusion. Very few people actually know what they are signing up for.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 8, 2014 20:51:22 GMT -5
It's also a lot easier to switch to a better provider when the first is failing you with health insurance than single provider.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jan 8, 2014 20:58:00 GMT -5
I was thinking of someone more like mid's dad mich. Yes, you were technically AMA but in my eyes you were simply changing doctors which is your right. My point is that THEY did not consider me anything but non-compliant and THEY had the final say. When I told them what I was going to do, they didn't care. Simple as that, I was non-compliant.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,883
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jan 8, 2014 21:08:18 GMT -5
Well that's an example of why I think refusing further care later to those deemed non-compliant is a tricky thing.
Personally I don't think switching physicians is a compliance issue. They chose to be bullies and deem it that way. And honestly they probably deemed you non-compliant to cover their asses in case something happened to you on the way to Washington.
|
|
Sharon
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:48:11 GMT -5
Posts: 11,285
|
Post by Sharon on Jan 8, 2014 21:16:56 GMT -5
Part of what I do for my job is programming for electronic medical claims. I attend seminars a couple times of year that are hosted by an organization I belong to. Also in attendance are people from insurance companies, software vendors, provider groups etc. We sit down and try and hash out how we can all comply with the regulations and still do our business.
The people from the insurance companies talk a lot about how with changes brought about by HITECH and PPACA, such things are the Electronic Health Record, ICD-10 codes, meaningful use, etc, that they we will be seeing more and more of an outcome based treatment.
The providers will be more and more strongly encouraged to follow a certain treatment method based on the likely outcome. The insurance companies will only pay for the particular treatment path. If you wish to try something different the insurance company probably will not pay for it and the doctor may or may not be willing to try it because it could affect their ratings.
I received a postcard from insurance company the other day to check out my providers rating that if you see a provider with their approved rating you could possibly pay a lower co-pay for office visits.
Unfortunately I think it is going to be harder rather than easier to go against medical advice.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 8, 2014 21:19:03 GMT -5
The Walk of the Penguin Mich - actually you raise another good question I've been wanting to ask. In countries with single payer systems do patients have the right to see the doctor they choose, or is one chosen for them? I wish some of our friends from the UK and Canada would chime in. Here's an article I found on that issue: link
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Jan 8, 2014 21:30:46 GMT -5
It's also a lot easier to switch to a better provider when the first is failing you with health insurance than single provider. Really? Do you really have choices, or are you limited to what your employer and your spouse's employer decided to offer that year? Do you get to switch insurers immediately after the need for treatment becomes apparent or do you have to wait until the next calendar year? Do you get any sympathy from others when your insurance company balks or fumbles or are you being told that you should have done your homework when choosing insurers? I think that choice is a bit of an illusion here.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 8, 2014 21:32:43 GMT -5
We give a lot of lip service to patient autonomy but in reality we don't support patients who wish to proceed against medical advice.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 8, 2014 21:42:06 GMT -5
It's also a lot easier to switch to a better provider when the first is failing you with health insurance than single provider. Really? Do you really have choices, or are you limited to what your employer and your spouse's employer decided to offer that year? Do you get to switch insurers immediately after the need for treatment becomes apparent or do you have to wait until the next calendar year? Do you get any sympathy from others when your insurance company balks or fumbles or are you being told that you should have done your homework when choosing insurers? I think that choice is a bit of an illusion here. It sure as hell gives you more choice than a single payer system. May not be instantaneous, but you still can choose. Even more so now with the health exchanges. And at least with our system we can pick our doctors and specialist and who cuts us open if needed. Based on mmhmmm's article that's not a choice afforded to people on single player.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Jan 8, 2014 22:55:54 GMT -5
I see. You certainly have every right to do as you choose, and you sound like you are making an informed decision. I think that is all most medical professionals can ask of and hope for their patients. I don't see it as a conflict of interest - if every female in the US gets a mammogram(s) as recommended, the entire cost to society - as a whole - will be minimized. As in, the cost/benefit ratio between detecting the cancer earlier enough to treat it and sampling often enough to detect it - is in harmony. So, maybe they are paid to conduct the test, but they certainly aren't paid to treat it - and that costs a hell of a lot more. If every female in the US gets a mammogram as recommended (once a year starting at age 40), if she is not otherwise at risk for breast cancer (a VERY important caveat!), by the time she is 55 she will have actually INCREASED her risk for breast cancer by 15% (1% per year for every year she has the radioactive exam). That risk is no savings to society. No thanks, I'll forgo the radiation and do the things that are KNOWN to prevent breast cancer (keep my weight down, stay off of synthetic hormones, stay away from industrial chemicals in food/cleaning supplies/household furnishings/cosmetics, stay away from alcohol, get enough sleep, get enough exercise, not smoke, eat generous amounts of cruciferous vegetables, practice stress reduction). Oh, and do monthly self-exams and get an annual breast thermography exam, just in case . My body, my choice - regardless of someone-out-there-in-my-medical-group's judgmental decision to label me "non compliant." Do I get denied medical insurance now (lol)? Do you have a citation for that 1% per year statistic?
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 918
|
Post by mollyc on Jan 9, 2014 0:05:44 GMT -5
The Jahi McMath thread as well as some other events got me to wondering... Does anyone know how countries with single payer healthcare systems handle cases where the patient goes against medical advice? I'm not talking about the "you need to drop 5lbs", but seriously ignoring doctor's orders and causing significant costs as a result. Obviously we also have the problem in the US. However I personally know of two cases where the individuals impacted have refused medical advice and have racked big bills as a result. Since they don't have to pay out of their own pocket there is NO incentive (um, maybe than being a bit healthier?) for them to listen to the doctor. So, just wondering if any other country has a potential solution to this issue. I assume you are looking for a way to force patients to be compliant. I'm pretty sure Canada doesn't have one but there are 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada so I can only speak with any certainty with respect to BC. A doctor can fire a patient but most around here would just strongly recommend you find someone whose advice you are willing to follow.
Neither the patient (or their family, if deceased) will be successful in getting restitution if a bad outcome is the result of their own actions. I haven't ever heard of a patient being charged extra because their non-compliance led to further hospitalization.
You need someone from the other 9 provinces and 3 territories to confirm what happens there.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 9, 2014 5:35:34 GMT -5
The Walk of the Penguin Mich - actually you raise another good question I've been wanting to ask. In countries with single payer systems do patients have the right to see the doctor they choose, or is one chosen for them? I wish some of our friends from the UK and Canada would chime in. Yes, you can choose your own doctor. If your GP writes a consult for a specialist, you have every right to say, "No, I don't want Dr.X, I want Dr.Y" However, if Dr.Y is booked up for months on end, you may wait for a very long time.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 9, 2014 5:45:59 GMT -5
Yes, it's usually allowed, but not always. For example, we had a homeless man here who was scheduled for a kidney transplant. Social workers were involved and got him a place to live post-op.
He, however, refused and said he preferred to live outdoors. In light of the fact that he would have to be on immunosuppressant drugs, living on the street was not an option, and the surgery was cancelled. They refused to waste a kidney or any other organ that is in extremely in short supply on someone who is non-compliant.
If someone is told to stop smoking or eating too much or stop shooting up heroin, and they don't, of course we still treat them.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 9, 2014 7:46:50 GMT -5
I believe the same would happen in the US. I seem to recall a news story where a teenagers parents tried to put a spin on him being taken off the transplant list due to some type of discrimination factor where it was actually due to non-compliance with the required treatment regime.
Also, just to clarify - I'm not looking to "force" anyone to be subjected to anything. I'm just wondering if other countries with a different system have found any solutions to non-compliance.
Just as an example (and I don't know how much of this was TV hype) I remember watching a show based in the UK where people with extreme weight problems would seek medical intervention. Before drugs or surgery was tried though they would HAVE to meet with a nutritionist and trainer, and meticiously chart what they ate and physical activity. They also had to follow the recommendations. If they didn't - (and I can't remember this for certain it's been a few years) I think they would not be prescribed drugs or get surgery.
What was remarkable about this approach (at least in TV fantasy land) was this (to me) more pragmatic approach produced astounding results. The before and after pictures showed the total improvement in the persons health (not just weight) skin color, hair, etc.
I think this kind of approach/step therapy should be required. Am I making any sense?
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,883
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jan 9, 2014 7:49:18 GMT -5
I believe the same would happen in the US. I seem to recall a news story where a teenagers parents tried to put a spin on him being taken off the transplant list due to some type of discrimination factor where it was actually due to non-compliance with the required treatment regime. Also, just to clarify - I'm not looking to "force" anyone to be subjected to anything. I'm just wondering if other countries with a different system have found any solutions to non-compliance. Just as an example (and I don't know how much of this was TV hype) I remember watching a show based in the UK where people with extreme weight problems would seek medical intervention. Before drugs or surgery was tried though they would HAVE to meet with a nutritionist and trainer, and meticiously chart what they ate and physical activity. They also had to follow the recommendations. If they didn't - (and I can't remember this for certain it's been a few years) I think they would not be prescribed drugs or get surgery. What was remarkable about this approach (at least in TV fantasy land) was this (to me) more pragmatic approach produced astounding results. The before and after pictures showed the total improvement in the persons health (not just weight) skin color, hair, etc. I think this kind of approach/step therapy should be required. Am I making any sense? My aunt's insurance required her be on a physician supervised diet for x amount of time before she could be considered for gastric bypass. She'd actually been losing weight with Weight Watchers. She gained on the physician supervised diet. It's been almost 10 years now and the surgery didn't do much for her. Of course she also hasn't followed the instructions to the letter either.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 9, 2014 7:51:35 GMT -5
The Walk of the Penguin Mich - actually you raise another good question I've been wanting to ask. In countries with single payer systems do patients have the right to see the doctor they choose, or is one chosen for them? I wish some of our friends from the UK and Canada would chime in. Here's an article I found on that issue: linkVery helpful, mmhmm, thank you!
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,504
|
Post by steph08 on Jan 9, 2014 9:01:49 GMT -5
I believe the same would happen in the US. I seem to recall a news story where a teenagers parents tried to put a spin on him being taken off the transplant list due to some type of discrimination factor where it was actually due to non-compliance with the required treatment regime. Also, just to clarify - I'm not looking to "force" anyone to be subjected to anything. I'm just wondering if other countries with a different system have found any solutions to non-compliance. Just as an example (and I don't know how much of this was TV hype) I remember watching a show based in the UK where people with extreme weight problems would seek medical intervention. Before drugs or surgery was tried though they would HAVE to meet with a nutritionist and trainer, and meticiously chart what they ate and physical activity. They also had to follow the recommendations. If they didn't - (and I can't remember this for certain it's been a few years) I think they would not be prescribed drugs or get surgery. What was remarkable about this approach (at least in TV fantasy land) was this (to me) more pragmatic approach produced astounding results. The before and after pictures showed the total improvement in the persons health (not just weight) skin color, hair, etc. I think this kind of approach/step therapy should be required. Am I making any sense? My aunt's insurance required her be on a physician supervised diet for x amount of time before she could be considered for gastric bypass. She'd actually been losing weight with Weight Watchers. She gained on the physician supervised diet. It's been almost 10 years now and the surgery didn't do much for her. Of course she also hasn't followed the instructions to the letter either. I know two people who underwent gastric bypass in the past year, and they had to do the same thing. The first one lost probably 50 pounds on the diet but weight loss stalled. After surgery, I believe he has lost another 100+ pounds. The other, an old college roommate, lost 100+ pounds with the surgery as well. Not sure about about how she fared with nutritionist/trainer first.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 9, 2014 9:43:51 GMT -5
I used to date a doctor who fired patients that didnt follow his advice. He had them initial his advice on their chart and then a year later, if they were non compliant, he could tell them they had to find another doctor as he would not be seeing them anymore. This startled quite a few patients btw. Most were overweight or diabetic. I'm thinking you are going to see more of this.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jan 9, 2014 9:48:05 GMT -5
I go against medical advice every.single.time I walk into my conventional doctor's office and they want to shoot me up with vaccines, radiate me with mammograms, etc. No thank you. I'll take full responsibility for any outcomes for my decision. I believe I will live a longer and healthier life by not being bombarded with unnecessary "just in case" chemicals and radiation, especially when I have no active diseases. Flame Away. Just curious - if you get breast cancer that could have been detected early enough but wasn't - are you going to pay for all the treatments yourself?
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jan 9, 2014 10:08:23 GMT -5
Once again we are getting into the area of where people want to have rights but not necessarily responsibilities. And yes, I understand that with healthcare if VERY gray area.
I am getting soooooo tired of hearing "my body, my choice", bc while it sounds all great and democratic and liberating - but someone is always paying the price. And that someone is not always the same as the person who is making choices about "his body"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 9:20:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 10:09:47 GMT -5
Same here. Red Flags all over my charts about a lot of things, I assume. I know many cancers have been caught and many women saved, so don't holler at me. However, it just doesn't make sense to me to do something to the breast that increases the risk of cancer in order to test for cancer. I had a friend, who had a spot on her breast that the doctors had been watching for years. She had a Mammo every year. She was fine until she experienced an extremely stressful situation in her life. Then the spot turned into full blown cancer, before they caught it. She died. What good did the Mammos do her? She would have been better putting that money to stress relief therapy, IMHO.
Did anyone read about that 21 year old girl who got breast cancer in a spot where she had been storing her cell phone in her bra? Her doctor said that a girl this age, getting breast cancer is extremely rare and he's seen two cases recently.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jan 9, 2014 10:20:25 GMT -5
Once again we are getting into the area of where people want to have rights but not necessarily responsibilities. And yes, I understand that with healthcare if VERY gray area. I am getting soooooo tired of hearing "my body, my choice", bc while it sounds all great and democratic and liberating - but someone is always paying the price. And that someone is not always the same as the person who is making choices about "his body" I know this thread is about extreme cases, but I think the principle applies to milder cases as well. Why do we bother covering type II diabetes? How about we don't cover anyone with high blood pressure, or anyone whose BMI is outside the normal range? How about we don't cover anyone who smokes? Frankly most of the population does things that hurts their health in one way or another. Maybe we shouldn't cover people who ride motorcycles, or people who mountain bike. The point is, we as a society agree to cover people who make risky decisions. And this means that people are more likely to make risky decisions because there is a safety net to help them. Am I bothered by that? Sure. But I don't think I want to go to a system where there's no coverage because basically everyone is excluded for one behavior or another.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 9, 2014 10:24:14 GMT -5
We, as a society, charge them more for exercising their rights to abuse their bodies. But I have zero problem with an insurers refusing to pay for costly treatments for lung cancer to a smoker.
|
|