E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Luis Robayo / AFP - Getty Images file
A plan to urge hepatitis C testing for all baby boomers could promote treatment and save lives, but a positive result could also cause problems getting various kinds of insurance.
A government proposal that all baby boomers get tested for hepatitis C may be drawing high praise for its potential health benefits, but it’s also raising questions about the unintended consequences of screening for those seeking insurance.
Experts in health insurance, life insurance and long-term care insurance warn that boomers who test positive for the blood-borne virus before being approved may dash their chances for coverage.
“I would never, ever tell anybody to delay getting any kind of medical exam,” said Jesse Slome, executive director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. “But you have an advantage over the insurance company if you apply for insurance before undergoing any kind of medical checkups.”
For the first time, government health officials suggested in May that anyone born between 1945 and 1965 be tested for the hepatitis C virus, which can destroy the liver.
The draft proposal, which could see a final ruling later this year, is aimed at getting some 800,000 baby boomers into treatment and potentially saving more than 120,000 lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Baby boomers make up about 2 million of the estimated 3.2 million people infected with hepatitis C, the CDC says. About three-quarters of those who have the virus don’t know it -- and many don’t think they’re at risk for it, said Dr. John Ward, director for the Division for Viral Hepatitis.
“Testing is the only way to identify these individuals in order to connect them to life-saving care and treatment,” he said.
Hepatitis C is spread through contact with contaminated blood or organs. It was widely transmitted through routine health care practices before the virus was identified in 1989 and before widespread screening of the U.S. blood supply began in 1992.
Social practices such as injection drug use and tattooing contributed to the problem, but so did unexpected transmission from routine exposures such as sharing toothbrushes or razors, even manicures and pedicures.
Getting tested may confirm the unsuspected exposure and prompt treatment, a plan that’s drawing praise from many of the dozens who publicly commented on the CDC’s draft proposal.
“This birth cohort screening, in my opinion, is the right methodology at the right time,” wrote Dr. Donald Jensen, a clinical and research expert in hepatitis at the University of Chicago. “The baby boomers are aging and need to be identified quickly before their disease and co-morbidities overtake them.”
But a positive test for hepatitis C also can raise worries for those who aren’t insured or who want more or different insurance.
“I am concerned that this will allow insurance companies to deny treatment for pre-existing conditions,” wrote Donna Bailey, a consumer commenter on the site.
Even treatment for hepatitis C might not guarantee acceptance since current protocols may not be 100 percent effective.
It’s true that hepatitis C is one of several chronic, life-threatening diseases that can exclude people from being insured, said Susan M. Pisano, vice president of communications for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national trade association representing the industry.
“You would have a condition if you were diagnosed, the same way you’d have a condition if you had asthma, diabetes or another condition,” she said.
The difference is, a leading government health agency is suddenly recommending that an entire generation be screened for the condition in question.
CDC officials say they’ve considered the problem. About two out of three people diagnosed with hepatitis C have health insurance -- but about a third of those diagnosed do not, officials said.
“Considerations regarding insurance coverage are real, affecting individuals and their loved ones ... ” Ward said in a statement to msnbc.com. “ ... These issues are ones we must continue to consider as part of any implementation of these recommendations.”
Under the Obama Administration’s health reform law, insurers would not be able to reject adults with hepatitis C or another pre-existing condition starting in 2014. But the Supreme Court is expected to rule within the week on overturning all or part of the Affordable Care Act, so that mandate is unclear.
Anticipating that the hepatitis C proposal may become final, CDC officials are working with insurance providers, public health agencies, commercial labs and others to coordinate the mechanics of such large-scale testing.
Until something changes, at least one insurance broker advises his clients to think about the consequences of the test results.
“It’s up to you,” said Michael McDonnell, a financial adviser who works at Individual Commercial Brokerage in northern California. “Test or not, insure or not. If you’re going to insure, wait until you are approved before doing the test.”
Related stories:
- Boomers wonder: Why test ME for hep C?
- Readers reveal hopes, fears about health care hearings
- A modest proposal: To solve health spending crisis, tax cats
More than three million Americans already have the liver disease Hepatitis C, and according to the Centers for Disease Control, one in 30 baby boomers have it – and most do not know it. NBC's Robert Bazell reports.
Leave a Comment:
More evidence we need single payer system.
“It’s up to you,” said Michael McDonnell, a financial adviser who works at Individual Commercial Brokerage in northern California. “Test or not, insure or not. If you’re going to insure, wait until you are approved before doing the test.”
Sad.
Romney said this week that he opposes even a "ban on health insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions," one of the law’s "most popular provisions," to quote ABCNews.
I'd like to add that on the list of uninsurable pre-existing conditions is having kidney stones. I know two people, who through no fault of their own, are uninsurable without a job or marriage to someone with a job with health insurance. One person was able to marry someone who has health insurance through a job (lucky timing), while the other had to find a low-paying job with insurance since his spouse is retired and cannot offer him insurance; the second person hopes to get back to his previous pay level, and is lucky to have some money saved up, but worries about his future. Because of kidney stones.
This pre-existing thing covers anybody, not just people who don't take care of themselves, and it concerns people on any place of the political spectrum.
Other non-fault pre-existing conditions include any and all forms of cancer, asthma, arthritis, high blood pressure, etc. The list goes on.
Indeed, Kryss.
Some of us lucky people are born with a health condition that either excludes us from coverage completely or drives our premiums sky high. Thank goodness for work-provided coverage.
I have scoliosis. It causes me pain, but it's not life threatening, and at this stage of my life isn't worth operating on. God help me if I had to get insurance on my own.
Also add Sleep Apnea, Elevated Blood Pressue, etc.
so all born in this age group are considered dopers and messed up old hippies.
Talk about F%%king profiling. Not enough livers out there to supply the need
Lets see. I never did drugs, I never had a tattoo. I've never had a pedicure, and by 1989 I hadn't had a manicure. To my knowledge I'd never shared a razor with anyone or a toothbrush..ewwww. The only times I've ever had unprotected sex was during marriage.
If you know what you've done and not done, you should be pretty safe.
Libtards are completely clueless about what the term "insurance" even means.
Insurance - the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one's person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved.
Once you force insurance companies to cover at risk people for the same rates, or even worse, allow some government bureaucracy to handle it, it is no longer insurance. If risk isn't properly measured, it is merely another wealth redistribution handout program.
mj and Janine,
Well, we certainly cannot call you readers. Intravenous drug usage and unprotexted sex practices represent a very small transmission source, perhaps comparable to personal services like manicures, pedicures and non-medical hair and skin treatments. The largest single transmission source is blood transfusions before monitoring incoming blood supplies for infectious diseases. The second largest transmission source was improperly sterilized medical equipment.
Yes, the people we paid to protect our health infected us.
noscope, a perfect example of the right-wing lunatic health plan:
"hurry up and die"
noscopes comments is further proof that the right is slipping into a nazi-style belief system that the "weak and infirm" should die "because they (the right-wingers) don't want to pay for it"
Hep C infected a lot of Vietnam Veterans and to me it seemed like it was used to infect US and others fighting with us. I was out of the Army for over 20 years when I found I had it. I took the 1 year treatment and the doctors still say that it is gone. How I got it I don't know but others I was in the Army with allso got. It is mostly transmitted by blood. In the Army what I done offten cause me to have small cuts and open wounds. The same with others working with and around me. If I got blood from one of the in a open cut I could have got it from them or they could have got it from me the same way. Ive met Doctors and Nurses and Dentist who got it from there work or beleve they did. My wife also had it befor we started dating and she had to fight the insurance company about it . She got free treatment from the company that makes the med for it for the frist 6 months of her treatment till the insurance lost there case and had to pay for the last 6 months. Its been 16 years sence she had it and 15 years sence I had it.
Get the facts write befor you start talking about something you know nothing about.
Did you ever have a blood transfusion? Did your spouse ever use your razor to shave her legs or face?
NoScope.... EXACTLY... insurance is not... NOT NOT NOT NOT for preventative care.... any more than Car insurance is for oil changes or homeowner's insurance is for new carpet.........
The expectation that insurance is for taking care of ourselves... eating right.... regular checkups... etc is plain wrong... it is there in case you get sick....
Instead we overeat..... drink....screw off.... smoke and worse and then when we get sick we expect someone else to take care of it... kind of like rushing out to get car insurance after you hit the cow.....
paul, that is pretty stupid considering that preventative care is less costly than care after the fact
Clearly this left leaning site does not want to offend the hippies. The real reason Hep-C is a Boomer disease, is from their unprotected overs3xed rutting in the 60's & 70's. Those cretins would do it with anything/anytime/anywhere. We can blame their lack of self control directly in the sudden explosion of HIV in the early 80's. I have lost track of how many Boomer women boasted about their "liberation", and proudly tell of how they got planked by 20-30 guys just in college alone. The hippie boomers are despicable children, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Write enough stupid stuff, often enough, and folks stop reading your crap.
So let them die because they were foolish 40 years ago?
How Christian of you.
Actions have consequences, even though the consequences are delayed 30-40 years!!
So, CME, if someone did something careless in their youth, you'd let them suffer as an adult? I'd hope not.
Faux News is calling...
I am one of those boomers. No, not all of us were rutting in the streets all the time. No, not all of us were high on drugs all the time. But I for one would let people die from being careless in their youth. Today's new smokers have all the information they need to make the decision of whether to take that first puff or not. Too many take it. The consequences are far-reaching and mostly delayed for 30-40 years, like Hep-C. But those consequences are a result of decision early in life. How else do you demonstrate that decisions have consequences if you not only protect people from making those decisions in the first place, but forgive them and support them when the consequences finally show up?
Failure is not only an option, but sometimes is necessary for the rest of the species to learn.
As one who had surgery in 1962 that required two units of blood, I resent the fact that you want to relegate me to the stoned, dirty, sex-crazed hippie crowd. I was blessed with bad tonsils, not "bad" morals.
And if you had ACTUALLY READ the article, medical practice is the over-whelming source of infection in this age group.
Liberals aren't the only people who get Hep C
We're happy with ourselves. We used up everything America has to offer and left you nothing. 28 different sex partners in college? Wow you must know a lot of nuns. My number was 56, but to be fair if I drank less and did less drugs I'd probably recall the other 200 as well.
yep, the right-wingers cry like babies about "death panels" but the insurance companies already have their proven death panels and the right-wing nutjobs cheer these death panels on.
I guess they think a death panel is a great thing if some overpaid slob of a CEO can make millions off of it
@walkwithmeinhell...what a self righteous judgmental person you are.
What do you plan to do about the disease of your generation , Obesity ?
I can see why you are walking in hell, it's where you belong.
WalkWithMeInHell: As a boomer I only wish that we had as much sex as your imagination suggests. The fact is that boomers are like Amish compared to every generation since.
Its obvious that Walk can't read well, baby boomers were born from 1945 to 1965. Besides, I believe I hear a bit jealousy in Walk's tone, they must have not been so lucky in those years to have so many partners.
walkwithmein hell -- Do you read these freaking articles before you comment???? Maybe YOU are the one who smoked too much of something. Get out of your mama's basement and come out into the real world. Hepatitis C USUALLY IS NOT CONTRACTED BY COVORTING AROUND AND DOING DRUGS!!!!!! Walking in hell is reading your dumba$$ comments.
"Social practices such as injection drug use and tattooing contributed to the problem, but so did unexpected transmission from routine exposures such as sharing toothbrushes or razors, even manicures and pedicures."
Did this article deliberately avoid mentioning that Hepatitis C can be transmitted sexually, helping to increase misinformation and hence increase the rate of infection?
Before I met my husband we both got blood tests to rule out hepatitis and AIDS. Sadly, not too romantic, but certainly practical.
Unfortunately, I would guess insurance would use a positive Hepatitis result to avoid paying for a pre-existing condition.
I'd say don't get the test. If you are a boomer and have lived this long and are in good health, chances are you'll die of something other than Hep C. In other words, there is no rush. Symptoms would include jaundice, fatigue, etc. Look up the symptoms on the Hep C website. If you haven't experienced any of those, delay the test. Even if you did have it and are symptom free, you likely have a mild case that has done and will do no harm. Not all hep c viruses act the same.
I think this article is incomplete and even misleading. When you get a physical and blood work done, your liver panel #s would show whether they are in the normal o r abnormal range. A doctor would follow up if your numbers are in the abnormal range. If they aren't, you have nothing to worry about.
Just curious, but what the HELL is Hepatitus C anyway? What does it do to you? What are the freakin' symptoms? How can someone have it and not even KNOW? If it's THAT mild of a malady, why is everybody so worked up over it? What happens, when you stand up does your butt fall off or something? How about a little information on this thing if it such an epidemic?????
Interesting that they want to start testing us for life threatening diseases just before obamacare is due to kick in.
it's a disease that very slowly destroys your liver, it can take decades to run its course
i'll go a step farther than the neo-conservatives on here:
I think any health problem associated with Obesity shouldnt be covered.
choices have consequences...eat healthy, and you've nothing to worry about.
something tells me the obese conservatives are gonna yell "NOW WAIT A MINUTE"
wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.
that just about sums up conservatives...addicted to wrath, addicted to greed, prideful in their quest for untold wealth, lusting after every last dollar, envious of poor people who simply cant manage to create a better life and waste away on meager welfare like it's winning the lottery and gluttony - eating themselves into massive obesity.
the sloth part. well...if INDIFFERENCE is the shoe that fits, then by all means...you better wear it.
sparkly - whats interesting about it?
the fact that private insurance can give them the boot before it's too late?
considering conservatives are hellbent on overturning it...doing it now, or later doesnt appear to matter...does it?
Iseeconfusedpeople - Oh!, Okay then, that helps a little bit. So if you get that stuff when you're 50 or 60 it may not even start to take you out until you're 90 or 100, and by then who gives a rats ass? Or, are we suppose to have had it since we were little kids? In that case since I'm now 64, so far so good.
Seeing that you were able to navigate to this site and post a comment, you are equally able to do an Internet search on it.
Or you could have simply clicked the Hepatitis C link provided in the article.
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/C/index.htm
All you had to do was read the first third of the article. Most of the time, reading past the title and the first few comments is beneficial.
Veteran - Hepatitis C is a blood borne virus that attacks the liver. Over time, it will cause liver damage to the point of having a liver transplant, liver cancer, or various other digestive ailments. By the time you get symptoms the damage is already pretty severe. For a quick overview, check out this link to Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C.
shark, hep c is not usually sexually transmitted >1% and that is mostly gay men. Check your facts before spreading false info. I've been married 26 yrs. & my wife doesn't have it.
Aside from the loser Republican remarks Hep C is actually a disease that came back with the Veterans from Viet Nam. However the government strongly denies it but if you look at the evidence its all there.
I came back with it no IV use or unprotected sex but i was subjected to air innoculations before deployment this is the veterans claim as to how it was sread dirty medical instruments.
If you have Hep C there are a few things you need to know,eat healthy,get exercise,never ever drink alcohol again ever, lay off the pain relievers they are deadly.
I have had this disease for 42 years and it has been chronic active the whole time my life expectations are mid 70s to early 80s.
I have treated with the Interferon and Ribavarin and the side effects nearly killed me after 6 years i still suffer from pain, and othe medical problems to numerous to mention and some unexplained. I have had freinds who took the treatment and no side effects good luck stay healthy and prepair to wage the war.
I am a nurse and work in the transplant field, I take care of liver transplant patients. The people who get Hep C have been infected by tattoo needles, blood transfusions, dental work with non-sterile instruments, shared toothbrushes, shared needles. Hepatitis C can live in the body for years as a dormant virus, with no symptoms, but can then replicate and become aggressive. When it does so, it attacks the liver, causing damage to the liver cells. It can eventually lead to liver failure and liver cancer, which are fatal unless you receive a liver transplant and treatment. Hepatitis C is treatable, however, if caught in time. There are several old and new medications on the market to treat it, and the newer ones have a high success rate. But you do need to have health insurance to cover the costs of Hepatitis C treatment, and if needed, to cover the cost of a liver transplant. This is an example of where the Affordable Act is a benefit to the American People, providing health coverage for everyone, and for removing the clause in insurance plans for "Pre-existing condition". The cost of both Hep C treatment and for a liver transplant are very high; without insurance, you would not be able to have treatment. Medicare will cover most of the costs, but not 100%, a supplemental private plan is best. The cost of health insurance is very high for all Americans, due in part because of the large number of uninsured Americans, causing the insured to pay a higher cost, to pay or offset the cost of medical expenses put on the system by the uninsured. If everyone had insurance, they would go to their doctor, have an annual physical, get tested for Hep C (and all other preventative medicine checks), and if something is found, be treated early on, rather than waiting until you are sick in the hospital needing a transplant. Which would you rather pay, monthly premiums,(and the more people who put into the pot, the lower the premium will be!) or $300,000 minimum for a transplant? (not counting a minimum of 2-3 months recovery, and a lifetime of expensive medications and routine blood tests). Or your life. I choose life. And insurance. Oh, and a transplant does not cure Hep C. The virus is still there, some transplant patients have recurrent Hep C liver failure, and need Hep C treatment a second time, or a second transplant. The key is early detection, and i applaud the CDC for standard testing of the Baby Boomers, though all at risk people should be tested.
Jessica....wow to jump to conclusions and be so wrong.
that is typical of the radical nutcase right, they desperately look for some way to place blame on the blameless and then tell them to "go and suffer"
Even if you have insurance today, you may lose it tomorrow and have to go shopping again -- your employer may stop offering it, the premiums may skyrocket beyond your ability to pay, you may lose your job, you may have to leave work for medical reasons, whatever. So yes, this test -- or any other -- will make you uninsurable, or insurable only at hugely inflated and unaffordable rates. We desparately need single-payer, or at least a robust and affordable public option (Medicare buy-in). Lacking that, I'll agree to get tested at 65 when Medicare kicks in.
Rugbymom in RI,
You hit the nail on the head. We are all just one test away from affordable insurance.
Rugbymom in RI and Dave,
Not only that, but between 'false' tests and laboratory mixups, we can't really be sure as to the true state of our health regarding hidden or slow-developing infectious diseases. My wife recently underwent a heart catherization procedure that revealed no significant blockage, despite a stress test result earlier the same week that indicated major, life-threatening blockages. So, other than several anxious days, followed by several days of pain, she still has no answers to her fatigue and chest pain issues.
All these people above who think they are safe and choose to judge others who are HEP C positive have no idea what they are taking about. In 2000 2 months after I was married I was told I was positve for HEP C. I must have gotten it from one of the 2 surgerys I had before the Dr's started sterlizing for it. Either that or a blood transfusion when I was born. Not sleeping around or using drug's as the stuiped people has stated above that we all must deserve it from our loose past. Further more only 1% GET hEP C through sex. No one in my past or present tested positive. I have been through pega-ferion treatments and now test negative. Before you throw stones remember this can happen to anyone! Some of us have touch blood as children getting cuts and scrapes we may not even remember something we did on the play ground 40 years ago. Before you put us down GO GET TESTED YOURSELF!
I'm a boomer. The young folks loaded with tatts are a much bigger threat to the med system with high costs of Hep C. I know lots of boomers with no tatts, no drug use, no Hep C. This new media driven threat is designed to whip up a furor because the minority of boomers who were promiscuios and shared dirty needles and spent a lot of time in tatt parlors look like a lot of people if you concentrtate on em. In reality they are a minority. Course the med industry and insurance industry folks have gotten fabulously wealthy separating the middle class from their life savings and transferring it to themselves promising to cure the life threatening problem du jure. Today it's Hep C. Big feakin deal. Nobady lives forever, and destroying a system for everyone because a few unwise people have given themselves a desease is stupid. IF someone got it from a hospital in an operation or transfusion - take care of them. If they got it from bad personal decisions - take it easy before wiping out everyone else to help them first.
Hep C is spread through blood and blood products. While it can be spread through sex, it is not the major mechanism of transmission. Prior to blood screening 8-10% of all blood transfusion recipients developed Hep C. After 1993, the rate of transmission dropped to <1%. Tattoos and needle sticks by medical personal are major causes of hep C. In recent years, 30-40% of cases occur in IV drug users. Based on this data, BabyBoomers and older would at much greater risk of having Hep C without having a standard risk factor. They received more medical care than blood prior to 1993 than the younger generations.
What a jerk you are for thinking that Hep C only infects people who have loose morals or are worthless low lives, that they somehow brought it on themselves. I suppose now we get to blame everyone with a cold for getting the cold.
I have Hep C, the most aggressive and damaging strain. Ten years now I've known I have it, and ten years now I can't get treatment OR insurance. Guess what? I feel just fine and would never have known had I not gotten the test done right before I lost my insurance (coincidentally, imagine that). That test cost $650 and I had it done because we found out a family member has it, as a "precaution".
I have no idea how long it will be before I die from it, and without insurance I won't get a doctor to even think about treatment. Nor do most doctors have a clue how it works, what it does, why some people fight it off, why some don't. And, the treatment is not effective most of the time. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat, too.
It used to scare the hell out of me, now, I just figure we all die, right? And at least I know not to drink, even occasionally. That is all the advice a person without insurance will get from a doctor, by the way.
If I were you, you moralistic @!$%#s who think that it only infects people who make certain "lifestyle choices" wouldn't it be amazing if you got tested and found out you have it? I know for sure how I did NOT get it, you judgmental creeps. I wish for you to walk a mile in my shoes, I bet you would not be spouting such ignorant crap.
Thanks, again, Boomers, for your nihilistic destruction of this country.
If you are a Boomer, and you are not a Millionaire, something went terribly wrong and you may want to get evaluated for retardation.
The softest, most pathetic, easiest generation, living in the wealthiest most powerful country in the history of Humankind, and you epically fail.
Pathetic Generation...the Boomers.
This is all probably just a smoke screen meant to hide the fact that the government was conducting secret biological warfare tests during the time period of 1945 to 1965, and those tests went haywire. I'm a baby-boomer, and I feel just fine... Thump!!
The o'baggers are boomers!!
Beginning early during 2008 I was treated for my Hep-C by my employer's previous health insurer, Anthem, which ended early after 7 months unsuccessfully. Almost certainly I got Hep--C from a blood transfusion during a minor outpatient operation in Cleveland, OH in 1987, four years before there was any test available to test the transfusion blood supply for the Hep-C virus. Back in 1987 big-city blood banks used to pay anyone including heroin and other IV drug addicts as much as $25 per pint for their blood, without knowing that a high percentage of such blood carried an unknown 50% fatal virus.
On July 1st of 2009, my employer switched from Anthem to Kaiser, and four months later, my 30-year career as a semi driver ended due to my declining eyesight, and my Cobra with Kaiser ran out in April of 2010, and at the age of 53, while I applied for individual coverage with Kaiser at that point, they turned me down flat as an empty beer can in the parking lot as a "pre-existing" condition, for my previous attempt at Anthem to treat my Hep-C which used the less-successful injected Interferon and Ribavirin method, which then only cured about half of all patients who tried that particular cure.
I have also in the last four years been turned down for additional life insurance too, as basically any confirmation that a person is infected with Hep-C makes that person uninsurable too. I still have my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court allows Obamacare to stand, as I can not get decent health insurance which will cover injectable or "formulary" medications because of my "pre-existing" status either, even though I paid into health insurance non-stop since 2000, and 90% of the time going back to early adulthood in the late 1970s too.
Since the new treatment for Hep-C includes two formulary drugs, plus Ribavirin, without coverage for those two drugs, the out-of-pocket cost would be in the neighborhood of $8000 per month for six months, and then another $4000 per month for another 6 months too, which is a pretty harsh penalty for getting a disease from the medical community due to no fault of my own.
Even decent healthcare insurance only pays 40-60% for formulary drugs too, so if 800,000 Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers need $75,000 worth of drugs to have a 65% chance of beating the disease, not only are a couple of pharmaceutical drug companies going to make a killing, but 800,000 victims stand to take a major financial setback too, well over half of whom got the virus through no fault of their own too.
Perhaps if a Baby Boomer or a member of the Gen-X age group is found to be infected with Hep-C, then the Federal government should just agree to cover those people through Medicare, since more than half got the virus through no fault of their own, and the lion's share of those cases came through deficient medical practices before anyone knew that such a virus existed too. Even the first 10 or so years of Gen-Y could have become infected through deficient medical practices before 1992 too.
Before 1992, only about 25-30% of all Hep-C cases came through illegal injection drug use, and every study done on Hep-C has also been unable to discern any cause for infection for 5-10% of cases too, so it is possible that mosquitos or scorpions could be carriers of Hep-C too, from one infected person to an uninfected person.
Does anyone seriously think that we would be told if mosquitos could carry a virus that is 50% fatal within 30 years after being bitten?
Posted by Never Stop Asking Questions:
If you are a Boomer, and you are not a Millionaire, something went terribly wrong and you may want to get evaluated for retardation.
The softest, most pathetic, easiest generation, living in the wealthiest most powerful country in the history of Humankind, and you epically fail.
Pathetic Generation...the Boomers.
You younger types have so far been lucky that you have only had to live through one or two major recessions as adults so far. Baby Boomers often have had to live through 5 or 6 recessions just since 1970, including the 1974-75 recession, the 1979-83 double-dip recession, which was almost as bad as the current Great Recession, the 1990-91 recession, and regional recessions in the oil patch in the mid-1980s and the defense industry recession during the mid-1990s too.
I'd like to see how much money you younger types have left after 4 years of over 20% unemployment, I really would!!!
Hey,
Lay off the boomer bashing. Now ask yourself one more question, never stop,......... wait what was I gonna say? Anyway bite me you gen xer or whatever they call you now. The only reason we had you un-grateful punks anyway was to pay for our retirement. Or was that so you could give your taxes to the already wealthy, I'm sooo confused. PS- I'm sorry education isn't what it once was so you could speel (purposely mis-spelled to make a point) better. The only thing I know is the good ole days never were. As soon as I find out what nilhillistic (from the latin nihil; or nothing) is you're in trouble (yes I know what it is and you're in trouble). I'll have my avatar beat up your avatar.
I too have hep C which I contracted in the navy from the use of the jet gun, corpsmen never bothered to wipe the tips or change them because they just wanted to get done. According to VA literature, HCV from tattoos is rare. FYI, only about 30% of people with HCV die as a result of HCV, most people die of old age.
I am in a study of a new anti-viral that shows great promise and will eliminate the need for interferon.
All is well, my viral load is undetectable and no side effects!
Poss,
"I too have hep C which I contracted in the navy from the use of the jet gun,"
How do you know if you have hepatitis C? Are there any symptoms? Do you have to get tested in order to be able to tell if you have it?
In 2006 after suffering from some odd intestinal virus infection requiring heavy antibiotics several times over the previous 18 months, my doctor ordered the Hep-C test, 19 years after the blood transfusion I had in 1987 that most likely gave me the disease. I had black tarry liquid stools and suffered diarrhea a lot more than is common over those 18 months before being diagnosed, and my gut swelled way up as a result of my liver swelling-up to several times its normal size too. There are other symptoms too.
Perhaps look through what information on Hep-C is available for free on the Mayo Clinic's website:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hepatitis-c/DS00097
Thanks, Old Timer!
And I hope you are doing better now. I had to take time out to look at the link you provided. Thanks again!
The only way you'll see single payer plan is when there is a deadly epidemic. Unlike other countries where sick people just go to the doctor, the 20% or more that will wait as long as possible will infect thousands before they end up in an emergency room. Contagious deadly diseases don't really care if you're insured or not but you will get good palliative care.
Being born in 1942 I am not in this group however when is government going to get out of our knickers. Why is it OK to to be this invasive (socialistic) on some topics and everyone is OK with it but when it comes to actually helping legal American Born Citizens it is socialism and can not be allowed. Is there no one that can see the abject hypocrisy of society today?
Remember this come election day and keep in mind while the President has certain powers the reason for the state of the union today falls directly in the lap of congress (you know the group of apes on the hill) - look up the meaning of the word "Congress". Vote EVERY ONE of those apes out of office and keep on doing it until they get the message they work for the U.S as in US not corporations or their own self interest.
Oldtimer is the kind of guy I wrote should get all the help he can get. He got his Hep C from a hospital. Hospitals still give out mersa like crazy - they don't want to clean anything. Many articles have been written about the unsanitary conditions at the hospitals. But the Administrators take home $200K and more ! the patients get deseases they didn't come in with. Hep C victims who got it from sharing needles, and getting tatts and the sort are the real problem. Other deseases are transmitted the same way. They all just want to line up and have the shrinking workforce pay their bills. If we have to start rationing, we should look at causes. Those folks who have been fast and loose should get in line behind people like oldtimier who got his desease through no fault of his own.
My husband is one of those aging boomers with hep-C. Luckily, he has health insurance through his former employer, but we are not able to purchase life insurance for him. Apparently, blood is drawn before issuing a life policy and if the disease shows up, I'm sure the information is shared with health insurance companies. I understand the need for people to be tested, but the treatments to "cure" hep-C are worse than the disease. My husband tried them twice - 48 weeks each time - and no cure for him.
I and my brother were taught in college that hep-c cant be cured, so im baffled as to what treatments were use to try and cure it??????? My dad has it and was told it is incurable.
Interferon type teatment 'cures' it (no longer shows up) in about 80% of one type and about 50% of another type, but treatment is six months of side effect hell...
Vertex pharmaceuticals has a new Hep C drug that is supposed to provide a better sustained virologic response, which is similar to a cure. Problem is that while this drug is a huge step up from previous treatments, the regimen must be aggressively adhered to, otherwise drug resistance will develop.
Hepatitus C ? I STILL don't know what it is. But, if you have to take Interferon Alfa 2-b to get rid of it, may God have mercy on your soul. I had to take that stuff for 13 months for Stage III Malignant Melanoma, and I wish it on no human.
If the test returns positive demand a viral load test to rule out false positive.
Yeah, the side-effects from injected Interferon are pretty brutal for the first couple of months. I got chills so bad that it felt like it was below zero in the house. I could barely get out of my recliner to go to the john for the first month, and I ended-up losing 30 lbs during the first two months using Interferon too. Have you ever had a migraine headache and diarrhea for three months straight? It is little wonder that depression is the number one side-effect of Interferon treatment, which affects almost half of all patients too.
Anyone know what the side-effects are like for the new HIV drug that is now taken in combination with weekly Interferon injections and Ribavirin several times a day too???
Morlack
"I and my brother were taught in college that hep-c cant be cured, so im baffled as to what treatments were use to try and cure it??????? My dad has it and was told it is incurable."
Wrong! There are several treatments and cures for hep c. If your fathers Dr. told him differently I think That I would find another Dr. for sure. Dr.s don't cure anything, they just treat a condition. You obviously are on a computer, just type in "hep c cure" and you will pull up page after page of treatments and cures for Hep C. They do not always work but there is a 70-80% success rate.
The entire thing mentioned is a SOP to the pharmaceutical companies.
The new drugs out for Hep-C as mentioned above by another posted are regiments for non-responders and new patients with the disease. So now EVERY Hep-C person that hasn't had this regiment can apply for it. However most insurance companies will require you to try it without the new drug first and be proven a non-responder before advancing to the expensive crap. Here is the thing, the new drug is included with the normal Pegasys-Pegatron treatments with Ribiviron. It literally adds approximately 60K in costs per cycle. Averaging 20K per month for a three month period to total that 60k. Big money for big Pharma. Hence all the screening they are trying to get everyone to do.
That cost is in addition to screwing you out of ever getting covered for life insurance, Short Term or Long Term Disability, and Home Care/Nursing Home coverage at advanced age. Because all the applications ask you that question. Do you have any major conditions. You get tested for Hep-C come back positive and don't tell them you are committing fraud. So before you get that screening be sure to get your 20-30 year Term Life policy, The Long Term Disability policy, and any other advanced care policy for old age. Cause it comes back positive you're screwed for life.
Cnihit, Right you are about purchasing other types of insurance when hep-C positive. I could get long term disability. long-term care insurance, and life insurance, but it's prohibitively expensive.
You people are simply missing the whole point, should you be tested? while that is up to you and your doctor, not the GOV. Here again they want to manidate something, but yet they say manidating insurance is illegal.
“I would never, ever tell anybody to delay getting any kind of medical exam,” said Jesse Slome, executive director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. “But you have an advantage over the insurance company if you apply for insurance before undergoing any kind of medical checkups.”
Proof that health insurance companies favor profit over actually providing healthcare. I dont understand why these corporation are ordained with the magical title of being a heath insurance company, when their behavior and attitude clearly proves they are not. I dont understand why only baby boomers are being so focused on for hep c?
Because they are the most at-risk group.
Health Insurance companies are in business to make money, just like any other private company, so why is it so surprising that they have policies and screenings that benefit their bottom line? When you see the word "company" or "corporation" or anything like it, remember that profit is the reason they are in business. This is neither good nor evil, it is just business.
Which is exactly why health insurance should NOT be a business. Single payer will eventually come to the US, but we will waste alot of money until then.
It's EVIL business, and profit does NOT belong in healthcare.
"profit in healthcare" is the reason that this country is spending nearly 20% of its GDP on healthcare-related costs and rising, several times what any other nation spends. and the technological edge that we have is rapidly declining despite the enormous amounts of money being spent.
we have utterly surpassed "diminishing returns, yet the top 1% again are just sucking up the dollars and screwing the rest.
take the profit out of health care and you will have what they have in Cuba. 5 reputable doctors (whom they rent out to other countries).
or we could end up like France, which is considered by most to have one of the best healthcare systems on the planet, and you don't need to take ALL of the profit out of it, just cut out the middleman (like for-profit insurance companies)
jolly - when you take the "profit" out of healthcare, that doesnt mean doctors dont get paid...and dont get paid well.
it means health insurance companies dont operate at 30-40% overhead, meaning the CEO is taking 30% of that.
hospitals dont end up in the business of trying to get "repeat customers" they simply take care of the sick, in hopes they dont get sick again and have to come back right away...but when hospitals have shareholders to please, you better damn well believe they are operating SICK CARE not HEALTH CARE.
healthy customers dont come back as often and spend as much - REALITY.
perhaps you like the extremely sick system we've got running? maybe you're the easy button guy who's had 3 bypass surgeries and goes out and has a triple cheeseburger after each one?
They are focused on because they had more health care (and other practices such as manicures) prior to screening for Hep C. Younger generations who have are likely to have known risk factors such as IV drug use or needle stick by a medical personal.
Posted by Neal in Denver:
Health Insurance companies are in business to make money, just like any other private company, so why is it so surprising that they have policies and screenings that benefit their bottom line?
Health insurance companies are in business to make a profit, and obviously high-risk needy customers have the potential to eat into that bottom line too, thus health insurance companies mainly only cater to low-risk customers while seeking to permanently exclude anyone whose care might cut into profit.
As for "choice" in healthcare, how much choice does anyone insured by Kaiser or most HMO's actually get? At Kaiser you get a choice of any doctor working at Kaiser, and nobody else, unless you are willing and able to fork-over some serious dough. At most HMO's, you get to choose between any medical provider who is willing to take a big rate cut in order to serve the HMO's patient's needs, and any other medical provider not willing to take a big cut will cost you 100% too.
Does anyone think for a minute that the Lion's share of health insurance companies in the US are willing to provide high-cost care that might dent their bottom line over the all too frequent treatment regimen of shoveling out some more pills and putting off the average patient's medical needs hopefully long enough to stick some other health insurer with the problem later, often too late to save the patient?
Do most US health insurance companies pay for cancer treatment? Perhaps you should find the answer to that question out the hard way instead!!!
Yes, as someone with Hep-C, given to me by the medical community through deficient blood procurement practices back in 1987 when I needed a blood transfusion due to a botched dental operation, I would vastly prefer a socialized single-payer no-fault healthcare system over our current system which mainly only seeks healthy patients while excluding anyone who actually needs health insurance coverage as a potential profit liability.
Try suing that dentist, the oral surgeon, the hospital, or the blood bank that gave me Hep-C now, 25 years after the fact, now that the responsible parties are in their 80s or long gone, and the hospital and blood bank both have changed hands several times since then too?
Good luck with that, eh? So I guess that I am the responsible party now that I'm a pre-existing condition, due to no fault of my own? Either the Supreme Court rules Obamacare legal or I have to move to Canada if I want a 65% chance of saving my life for any less than $75K out-of-pocket?
Most US health insurance companies do not cover cancer treatment either, so if you want cancer coverage, it is a separate add-on policy that Aflac and Mutual of Omaha offer at additional cost too.
lib50 wrote:
Who do you think will develop new drugs if the discoverer/manufacturer cannot make a profit? While you didn't say that healthcare is a right, I think it's implied in your comment. Your "right" implies an obligation of someone, presumably someone other than you, to supply it. Surely you see the issue with that.
And before you respond, understand that I already see the issue with an uninsured office visit to get a prescription for antibiotics or to have a wart removed costing $250. Something is clearly wrong. I don't have the answer though.... and I fear that there isn't one, not now, maybe not ever.
What about people who paid into healthcare insurance for 30 or more years until they were denied coverage by a new insurer after changing a job, having their employer go bankrupt, or losing their career for medical reasons?
The answer is pretty easy, as every other first-world country has already found that answer, although it is an answer that anyone who benefits from healthcare spending and runaway healthcare cost increases doesn't seem to like very much.
As I have said before, as someone who has been denied coverage after paying into the system for over 30 years, because of my Hep-C diagnosis and a previous attempt at treating my Hep-C with just Interferon and Ribaviron wasn't successful, without health insurance, treatment today for Hep-C using the new 3-drug cocktail (65% successful) is going to run $75K out-of-pocket minimum, unless I can survive another 10 years until I'm old enough for Medicare!!!
the nutcase right-wingers will tell you to hurry up and die, and that it is your fault you got a bad blood transfusion or whatever.
Morlack, you ask why Boomers are being targeted? What other demographic -- retiring, ageing, getting older and yes, more infirm -- poses the single largest dollar threat to private insurance companies and publicly subsidized health care plans? This group. Don't think for a moment there isn't a wizard behind the curtain; it's social calculus.
"The draft proposal, which could see a final ruling later this year, is aimed at getting some 800,000 baby boomers into treatment . . ."
Only if they have an iron-clad health insurance plan in hand before testing. And even then you better damn well check the policy boilerplate.
But we can rest easy now. "I'm from the Insurance Company, and we're here to help." Unless you don't have insurance; unless you do, but have preexisting conditions; unless you've lost your job and your COBRA benefits; unless you're uninsurable; unless you're late with your premiums; and unless you just tested positive for Hep-C.
Otherwise, what can we do??
Politicians certainly don't mind taxpayer funded health insurance for themselves.
I see nothing was mentioned of the 10s of thousands of health care workers not screened for Hep C... sure they all get Hep B vaccines, but the exposure of diseases nurses, doctors, therapists, techs, aides etc. are exposed to is huge, and very detrimental to them later in life. When so many of us(healthcare workers) are shown positive with Hep C.... whose responsible then? Obviously public journalists are naive about this problem, as well as the medical facilities who ignore this problem by burying their heads in the sand. Btw Morlack.. remission is the word, many diseases are not cured as many think.
Of course, this will have no impact on the cost of either, insurance or health care.
In a couple of year we'll be reading about how the costs of medical care are still exceeding inflation, and everyone will be scratching their heads and wondering why. The hotheads will be screaming about greedy insurance companies.
Of course tests like the one above have no cost.
As long as for-profit insurers can make their own rules, they are always going to tell people, 'Sorry---if you actually need our coverage, we're not going to give it to you.' A single-payer system is the only solution to the practice of denying coverage due to 'pre-existing' conditions.
And a single-payer system will eventually bankrupt the entire country. No system can cover everyone and succeed. At a certain point some kind of board or committee will be formed to ration care and judgements will be made as to whether an individual is worth treating or should just be left to suffer or die. Hence the popular name for such boards or committees, Death Panels.
Neal in Denver,
Such panels already exist, at health insurance companies.
Neal, you are WRONG. We already pay almost twice the healthcare costs as the rest of the industrialized world. Single payer will help lower the costs, and frankly I would prefer anybody but a for profit company on the 'death panel'.
Neal in Denver, we already have Death Panels. It's just that they're called health insurance companies.
I've lived in countries (NZ, Aust. UK) with universal health care. It's way better. Everone is covered and the cost is much lower overall. In most cases you can also buy additional private cover at a reasonable price. The right wing has brainwashed the Republican voters with scare tactics and half truths. I laugh out loud when I hear about death panels. Absolutel nonsense, along with all the other half truths about universal care. We have a huge problem and there is a solution, but it can't be implemented because those reaping the financial rewards (read: those who control the politicians) want to keep the staus quo...
Of course single payer is more efficient. I see so many advertisements for hospitals and doctors' offices, plus the drug companies urging us to tell our doctors what drugs we want. All that nonsense would be GONE.
Posted by Neal in Denver:
At a certain point some kind of board or committee will be formed to ration care and judgements will be made as to whether an individual is worth treating or should just be left to suffer or die. Hence the popular name for such boards or committees, Death Panels.
Which is a whole lot like the Boards or Committees at Kaiser and at all of our HMO insurers that serve the bottom 90% of us today which currently seek to limit access to expensive care, as well as seek to exclude any higher-risk patient from even obtaining coverage in order to protect the organization's bottom line, a system that it would seem that you are perfectly fine with today too!!!
Having had it for quite a while, I am unable to get life Insurance at this time, or ever. My DR. Tells me that newer treatments are coming down the road. The Insurance companies need to Insure, or lose their License.
Or we can just ditch the insurance companies and go single payer.
yes John, there is a new treatment in a phase II study.
it is a new anti-viral coupled with ribavirin and I have been in treatment for 12 weeks now. my viral load is undetectable and there have been no side effects! I take the new med once a day with ribavirin, then a dose of ribavirin alone 12 hours later. No more interferon! I am about to go into a 10 year study to see how the new med affects my immune system, this will start at the end of the 24 weeks of meds and after a liver biopsy. more to come!
Oh yes, isn't this a great country? One where health care is so expensive we must qualify to buy insurance in order to even hope to be treated for a number of disqualifying conditions? While any politician attempts to rectify the situation, the opposition screams "socialist! higher taxes! and let him die!" Yet we profess to be a Godly nation. Somehow I don't think we qualify.
"I am about to go into a 10 year study to see how the new med affects my immune system...."
Gee, wouldn't it be just too bad if it turns out that there is some fatal side-effect of the new treatment on down the road a piece, as at that point you will obviously be considered a pre-existing condition too???
WOW, what a scare tactic to try to ensure the passing of the Obama Health Care and that it does not get thrown out by the US Supreme Court before it becomes law in 2014. Amazing how Govt Health Officials are the ones who are pushing for Baby Boomers to get the insurance application approved first! That way Obama can say he has all constituents in his concerns for better health care for everyone.
Sorry, scare tactics does not work on people who understand the "hidden agenda".
Wow, you are one rabid conservative. Someone get him a muzzle. This was just a stupid response to a serious issue.
Any time a government agency proposes something, look at in the light of the party currently in power. Then you can see that a scare tactic might be part of this proposal. Get the boomers tested, barred from private insurance and wanting ACA to be approved. This is similar (but not identical) to BHO telling SCOTUS that the ACA is not just a legal matter, but an economic and human matter. Too bad for him SCOTUS is barred from considering anything but the constitutionality of the law and its various parts and too bad that ACA was written in such a way that striking down one part pretty much invalidates the rest of it.
Eagerly awaiting the courts ruling in late June, early July to see if this country can survive (mandate struck down) or completely fail (entire ACA upheld).
Neal, if the republican idea of a mandate is thrown out, the only other way to lower healthcare costs is single payer/public option. It would be poetic justice if the republicans are responsible for making those the only options to lower costs. The mandate is a republican idea, they just don't like it because Obama is attached to it.
Doesn't matter. The Republican philosophy is that everyone should get the best healthcare they can personally afford.
SC will announce ruling next Monday according to CMS District attorneys
under obama's plan that we keep trying to kill, you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions. It's a sad state of affairs, when we have to be tested for hep c, but congress doesn't. And even if they do, there is no way in hell the insurance companies will deny them. They can raise their rates, which in actuality is a raise on the american people. I remember laughing when I was a young kid about "Big Brother", but I'm not laughing anymore. The lord is the puppet master of the spirit, but who is the puppet master of the flesh. Apparantly they sit on capital hill. Thinking and thinking and thinking of more ways to bring us down to the eye to eye level of the gutters. Just a matter of time. We will be that third world country we feel so sorry about.
Here we go again, the right wingers are just like the radical muslims....the taliban is denying polio vaccinations to kids and the right wingers here want to deny coverage for hepatitis because of their ignorance about epidemiology. Stay on the same page with uneducated muslim countries in terms of prayer in school, women's choice, drill drill drill, hatred of foreigners, capital punishment, guns in the streets, etc. etc. and the US will become a miserable place to live.
It's not about denying coverage for Hep C. It's about denying insurance to a portion of the population who will soon overwhelm our healthcare system. Reform of the system would hurt profit margins. This isn't ignorance, it is malicious intent.
Serves them right for voting Republican. Now there may be fewer of them without health care and then fewer of them to vote Republican.
Hey, not all boomers are stupid enough to vote republican.
Nope, just as many of them are stupid enough to vote democrat.
Yup, My wife before she had a baby in 1980 got a physical and was told all was well. After having the baby and getting 5 units of blood during the process, she was told she had antibodies to hep a or b, I can't recall. Then when they came out and said if you got a blood transfusion in the early 80's you should get tested for Hep C. She was tested and she had it. I never wanted our son to be tested as I figured it might screw up his chance to get insurance when he got a job due to pre-existing conditions and I didn't know whether the blood went in before the baby came out or not as it was a Caesarian and I wasn't in the room. Well I guess the blood went in after as after he got his own job and his own insurance through his company he was tested and was told he didn't have it, but I worried about that until he was able to get his own insurance and get tested.
A single payor system would not fix the problem. There would not be ONE health insurance company under a single payor system, it just does not work that way. Medicare claims processing and coverage issues for example are handled by 6 or so different Insurance companies that contract with them. The country is seperated into "Regions" so each region is actually handled by a diffferent insurance copany. The government does not process the Medicare claims, these different insurance companies do. So a so called "single payor" system would not mean one big insurance company it would just mean all the insurance companies we have not we get government contracts so "guaranteed money" to handle this one payor system. The insurance companies would have even more money and less responsibility. That is not a better option.
PLUS: look at the healthcare law, just because you won't be turned down due to a pre-existing condition does not mean the insurance company won't charge an arm & a leg to insure you. There is nothing in the law about that. So you might be able to get insurance coverage but you probably won't be able to afford it.
Yes the system is broken, yes it needs a major overhaul, but I don't think a single payor system is the answer.
I don't think people are advocating giving medicare to everyone. It was designed by politicians to funnel money to private insurance companies that contributed to their campaigns and little more. Something new would need to be setup. Hopefully, with less corruption.
Btw, I use to work for a Medicare contractor.
iowa guy, lol! I do insurance billing for a living can you tell! I was merely stating that people think a single payor system would resemble Medicare, IE a government insurance benefit, and it's a large insurer. I was just making a point that a government single payor option would not really be a single payor. And that it would not do away with insurance companies as a whole. Currently these companies are chomping at the bit to get a piece of a governmet contract for a single payor system. I was making a point that no one insurance comapny could handle that volume and using Medicare as an example. Good luck in whatever you currently do!
Medicare costs about 3% to implement payments to providers compared to private insurance companies of +/- 30% costs. Jessica, a single payer system would work as well as Medicare works today.
Work as well as medicare = Same amount of fraud.
Medicare is VERY efficient and is less costly than insurance providers. Fraud is fraud. How can you say the country can do without health care reforms simply because fraud is involved. Everyone is subject to fraud, even the private insurance companies. Doesn't equate to it ruining the program. Get a clue.
So really your best option is to go to another country and get yourself tested. Then with the knowledge you gain there, make your decisions in the US. Then at least there won't be a record of it here in the system.
Won't work. If the insurance company can show that you had any prior knowledge of a prior condition they can deny coverage and possibly sue you for not disclosing the fact to them before getting their insurance.
Am I the only one that would have a huge problem with this?
No, it would clearly be agism if not for the fact that what it really is is an attack on those that the insurance companies do not want to insure. I.E. those that are likely to need healthcare. It's not agism, it's capitalism at it's finest.
No U people as a babyboomer I have a big problem with this!!
Hey U people~ Hand raised over here. Huge HUGE problem with this. This sort of "winnowing" is exactly the kind of corporate behaviour that folks were worried about when "insure or else" laws were originally proposed. "Pre-exisiting conditions" let the commerical health insurors off the hook for many, many diseases and conditions with which we are coping as a majority of aging population. I don't have health insurance--I put away a percentage of each paycheck and pay my health care charges bills in cash. If Obummer's law is implemented and the government tries to force me to buy health insurance, they'll have to come after me. There better be a bunch of them and they better be armed--I am.
Pass the frickin scotch.
I hope you have a really large paycheck. One major illness can bankrupt people even when they have health insurance!!
You know it is the insurance companies that are pushing for this. As the Baby Boomers grow older they add additional strain on the insurance companies profit margins as there is no money to be made in insuring the sick. Thus, they are looking for ways to deny the Boomers coverage.
As others have said, it is time for us to catch up to the rest of the world and move to a single payer system. The problem is that this flies in the face of capitalism and thus is frowned on very heavily in the United States, as capitalism can do no wrong. Time to pull our collective heads out of the sand and see that there are flaws in everything we do. It's balance that make things work.
Again, single payer will result in Death Panels. Call them whatever you want but some mechanism to ration care will have to be put into place for economic reasons.
Neal, again, insurance companies are already death panels.
and just what do you call denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions?
oh yeah, a "death panel"
make that a "death panel for profit"
And on another related thread today someone posted that since we're going to have to ration healthcare anyway the economic model is the best one because it's "most fair."
Huh?
of course they are going to tell you that it is "most fair" , after all rush told them so...
A meaningless statement because if he kills Healthcare Reform (as he has sworn to do on his very first day in office) he kills the ability of those with pre-existing illnesses to get coverage. It is as simple as that. No private insurer is going to voluntarily do such a thing on their own volition without massive restrictions on benefits. And it will be years upon years before any such plan would be put to a vote again. And a GOP Congress would defeat it every time. Nor will they dare touch on Healthcare as an issue, other than killing Healthcare Reform (Obamacare as most of you know it now) if given the opportunity.
If you know someone whose life is on the line regarding this situation you would have to be insane to vote GOP. If you know someone who has Hep C as the result of an ordinary blood tranfusion prior to '86 that should double your resolve to keep Democrats in office. Without them this is a dead issue for at least a decade.
Just becasue you can get coverage with a pre-existing condition does not mean you could afford it! There is no limit on what an insurance can charge you, sometimes they examine your pre-existing health and therefore will charge you more than you can afford. Making insurance cover pre-existing conditions is useless if you have an expensive condition like a current cancer, MS, etc... It just was a way to make reform sound great, thay have to cover kids with cancer this law muct be a good think right? they can charge you $3,000 a month if they want but they will cover them. Just a smoke screen to make everyone think the law is great. As a lot of new laws tend to do, it still falls short espescially with pre-existing conditions.
jessica1979
Just becasue you can get coverage with a pre-existing condition does not mean you could afford it!
This would not be true under the pre-existing provision. You can in fact get insurance from certain carriers today with pre-existing illness at outrageous prices and under strict conditions. You do not seem to even begin to understand the concept of this reform. There are built in provisions for costs. But considering the amount of propaganda used to smear this bill your lack of understanding comes as no surprise.
"Under the law, the premiums for this (pre-existing) pool will be the same as would be charged for a standard population of people with varying risks. Maximum out-of-pocket cost sharing for enrollees will be $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, per year."(Christian Science Monitor)
Why are people allowing themselves to be fooled by the already wealthy so easily?
"Long term care is the largest unsecured risk facing senior Americans today" – Money
Jonathan Pond, Financial Planner, says that 90% of estates are spent this way: 1) nursing home, 2) IRS, 3) children, 4) grandchildren, 5) charity. More people are worried about the IRS taking their money than about having to spend it on a nursing home.
Some 75 million boomers are ill prepared to cover the costs of long term care especially since Medicare and health insurance does not cover the bulk of long term care and Medicaid only does once someone has spent their live savings to the poverty level. http://www.longtermcare.gov
With only about 10% of those buying long term care insurance (http://www.nationalltc.com) the rest will spend their estates on paying for care and some will end up on welfare health care (Medicaid) after spending all their money.
The Federal Deficit Reduction Act provided for every state to have a Partnership program to provide asset protection for those who buy qualified long term care insurance policies. http://www.partnershipforlongtermcare.com/
An alternative are linked-benefit products, Life insurance or Fixed annuities with long term care riders. In most states you can also use your qualified money (IRA/401k) to fund your plan (if you don't need that money for income). (http://www.nationalltc.com)
What insurance does is spreads out the risk, which lowers your potential cost. When you buy insurance you are joining a group, everyone pays but not everyone uses it. Would you rather face the risk all by yourself by self-insuring.
The risk of needing long term care is greater than 1:2, compared to home risk 1:1,200, health 1:16, car 1:250. Any financial planner suggesting you self-insure is either a fool or knows not the risk. If you are uninsurable then elder-law/estate planning is the next step http://elderlawanswers.com
Good luck.
Well said, Toomy.
They should be able to exclude fat smoking 4 wheeler riding drunks too...talk about a profile to avoid covering
So who is going to pay for all these tests? Who is involved with the companies that will do the tests? JUST MORE BIG GOVERNMENT. Forcing tests, making children take vaccinations (Texas) and controlling women's bodies.
I doubt they can "require" this anymore than some states, VA for example, can require a woman to have a vaginal ultrasound and view it prior to getting an abortion. You must all be following that nightmare legislation fiasco. So, it will probably be recommended. And if it does end up being "required" I also have a big problem with it. Doesn't "requiring" violate the comerce clause by federally require me to buy something? That's what all the hoopla is with the Health Care Act - does it violate the commerce clause.
Another disgusting example of the health care industry in America.
jj - another Feaux Channel education at work. Leave it to an insurance agent to boost the appeal of ambulance chaising lawyers and inner city gansta types! For profit medicine is a sham.
and Not For Profit medicine is a roaring success? Guess again.
we have a non-profit health insruance carrier in my area & yes it IS A JOKE! They make millions in profit but I guess they get to pay less taxes. Very odd if you ask me...............
Maybe you should take a look at the Mayo Clinic. It is a non profit organization that charges us one tenth of what the non profits do in our home town. Why don't we look at their system. It certainly works!!!