Hubby Wanted -- For Health Care

[Commoncents]

(CBS) A San Diego County woman with a rare genetic disease is looking for a husband -- with really good health insurance, and in a unique way.

As CBS News correspondent Randall Pinkston reports, Terri Carlson, a 45-year-old divorcee, created a Web site and has been posting several YouTube videos saying that she'll marry for health insurance.

She's searching for "the one" with the lowest co-pays and, according to one of her posts, doesn't care about physical appearance.

Carlson's condition, called C4 Complement Deficiency, has no known cure.

Hubby Wanted -- For Health Care - The Early Show - CBS News

Anyone looking for that special someone to subsidize?

Can it really be true that this is what shes stuck with?

I tend to beleive shes got alternatives...especially in SD.

 

[American]

If there is no none cure, what will insurance do for you? painkillers?

 

[liblady]

i'm so honored.

 

[RightinNYC]

This really highlights what I don't understand about this line of argument. People are lambasting the insurance companies for being reluctant to cover her, calling this proof that the insurance industry is terrible and evil.

In what other industry do we require a private company to sell its services to a customer that it knows will cause it to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If I'm applying for homeowners insurance, and the insurance company knows that my house burns down every 6 months, should they be forced to cover me? If I'm trying to get car insurance, and the insurance company knows that my car falls off a cliff every 2 months, should they be forced to cover me?

 

[EnigmaO01]

She's not bad looking. Does she really like sex I mean like five times a day? :devil:

 

[danarhea]

This really highlights what I don't understand about this line of argument. People are lambasting the insurance companies for being reluctant to cover her, calling this proof that the insurance industry is terrible and evil.

In what other industry do we require a private company to sell its services to a customer that it knows will cause it to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If I'm applying for homeowners insurance, and the insurance company knows that my house burns down every 6 months, should they be forced to cover me? If I'm trying to get car insurance, and the insurance company knows that my car falls off a cliff every 2 months, should they be forced to cover me?

I don't care about the conditions on which those companies insure people. I am concerned about the practice of insurance companies making false claims, then denying coverage, after the client has paid in for many years, and then gets sick. Happens all the time, and there should be a very substantial penalty for that.

 

[Kandahar]

In what other industry do we require a private company to sell its services to a customer that it knows will cause it to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

That argument doesn't really work since insurance skews the cost of health care for EVERYONE, including those who don't have insurance.

Besides, as long as a ban on discrimination for preexisting conditions was coupled with a health insurance mandate, the insurers wouldn't be much worse off. The young/healthy would pay a bit more and the old/sick would pay a bit less. Besides being more equitable, it would be more economic to spread the cost of one's health care out over the course of one's life.

If I'm applying for homeowners insurance, and the insurance company knows that my house burns down every 6 months, should they be forced to cover me? If I'm trying to get car insurance, and the insurance company knows that my car falls off a cliff every 2 months, should they be forced to cover me?

You can control how often your house burns down or how often your car falls off a cliff. You can't control whether you get leukemia.

 

[RightinNYC]

That argument doesn't really work since insurance skews the cost of health care for EVERYONE, including those who don't have insurance.

Besides, as long as a ban on discrimination for preexisting conditions was coupled with a health insurance mandate, the insurers wouldn't be much worse off. The young/healthy would pay a bit more and the old/sick would pay a bit less. Besides being more equitable, it would be more economic to spread the cost of one's health care out over the course of one's life.

Even if we had such a system, how do you decide which particular private insurer gets burdened with each of these loss-leading patients? For patients like this one, each company has a vested interest in offering such terrible service and bureaucratic nonsense that it drives those people to choose other providers.

I'm also unaware of anything that would support the claim that the added profits from increasing the number of subscribers would even come close to covering the additional costs that those uninsured would impose on the system.

You can control how often your house burns down or how often your car falls off a cliff. You can't control whether you get leukemia.

I tried to pick examples that minimized the human input, but didn't do a particularly good job. Let's pretend that through absolutely no fault of your own, your house burns down every six months or your car falls off a cliff every six months. Does the question still get answered the same way?

 

[buck]

I am concerned about the practice of insurance companies making false claims, then denying coverage, after the client has paid in for many years, and then gets sick. Happens all the time, and there should be a very substantial penalty for that.

There already is a substantial penalty for that. Insurance companies that have been found guilty of an intentional practice as you describe face millions of dollars in fines on top of having to pay the denied claims and face many other restrictions and fees.

However, it's not nearly as common as you want to make it out to be. A vast majority of an insurance companies claims are paid within a very reasonable time.

Most of the time a customer that has been paying premium on a life policy for "many years" then has a claim denied, is due to the client lying on the application. Material misrepresentation is one of the tennants of contract law. I can't imagine you are in favor of getting rid of that.

In case you're thinking of pre-ex periods, those are typically only for 12 months - so would not involve a client paying into a policy for "many years".

 

[Kandahar]

Even if we had such a system, how do you decide which particular private insurer gets burdened with each of these loss-leading patients? For patients like this one, each company has a vested interest in offering such terrible service and bureaucratic nonsense that it drives those people to choose other providers.

That's why we also need minimal standards to accompany a health insurance mandate. If those minimal standards became the ONLY standards as insurers raced each other to the bottom, that might not be such a bad thing. IMO we need more catastrophic health insurance and less regular health insurance, to keep health care costs down.

I'm also unaware of anything that would support the claim that the added profits from increasing the number of subscribers would even come close to covering the additional costs that those uninsured would impose on the system.

The fact that the health insurance companies have been lobbying for exactly such a tradeoff (i.e. we'll stop discriminating for preexisting conditions if you mandate health insurance) since before Obama was even elected. To me, that indicates that the health insurers viewed it as a good deal for them, or at least viewed it as an acceptable loss to prevent more stringent legislation.

I tried to pick examples that minimized the human input, but didn't do a particularly good job. Let's pretend that through absolutely no fault of your own, your house burns down every six months or your car falls off a cliff every six months. Does the question still get answered the same way?

I'm having a hard time visualizing a set of circumstances for home or car insurance where you have the same recurring problem and it's completely out of your control. Does your house burn down every six months because you built it in the middle of a wildfire zone, and keep rebuilding it in the same spot? It might be an act of God, but you can still prevent it by living somewhere else.

If, implausibly, you're just the unluckiest person in the world and your home has burned down every six months for various random reasons that no one could've foreseen...then no, I don't think you should be discriminated against. For that matter, most of the actuaries at the insurance companies would probably agree, as long as they could somehow be sure you weren't scamming them.

 

[misterman]

Hubby Wanted -- For Health Care - The Early Show - CBS News

Anyone looking for that special someone to subsidize?

Can it really be true that this is what shes stuck with?

I tend to beleive shes got alternatives...especially in SD.

What are the alternatives you think she has?

 

[misterman]

If there is no none cure, what will insurance do for you? painkillers?

No known cure doesn't mean it's fatal, dude.

 

[misterman]

This really highlights what I don't understand about this line of argument. People are lambasting the insurance companies for being reluctant to cover her, calling this proof that the insurance industry is terrible and evil.

In what other industry do we require a private company to sell its services to a customer that it knows will cause it to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If I'm applying for homeowners insurance, and the insurance company knows that my house burns down every 6 months, should they be forced to cover me? If I'm trying to get car insurance, and the insurance company knows that my car falls off a cliff every 2 months, should they be forced to cover me?

Yes, this makes sense, and it's why the system is fundamentally flawed. Nobody will insure her, except maybe the government, and we end up paying for that anyway. Our system either leaves people out, or we include them at much higher cost. Either way we have a crappy system.

 

[misterman]

Besides, as long as a ban on discrimination for preexisting conditions was coupled with a health insurance mandate, the insurers wouldn't be much worse off. The young/healthy would pay a bit more and the old/sick would pay a bit less. Besides being more equitable, it would be more economic to spread the cost of one's health care out over the course of one's life.

True, but only if you require the young and healthy to pay in now instead of just waiting until they get old and sick.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

She's not bad looking. Does she really like sex I mean like five times a day? :devil:

Why? Do you have a friend in mind for her? :mrgreen:

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

No known cure doesn't mean it's fatal, dude.

That's very true. Chronic doesn't mean fatal.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Why? Do you have a friend in mind for her? :mrgreen:

Nope.

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Actually getting married is a lot of trouble for some action. Like I told an Amish friend that got married and had to get rid of his two pick up trucks for a horse and buggy, "That's a lot of sacrifice for a little action."

 

[buck]

Yes, this makes sense, and it's why the system is fundamentally flawed. Nobody will insure her, except maybe the government, and we end up paying for that anyway. Our system either leaves people out, or we include them at much higher cost. Either way we have a crappy system.

Not true. If she get's a job that offers group insurance, she will be covered. Since she currently has COBRA, she will not even be subject to any pre-ex waiting period and will be covered right away.

 

[misterman]

Not true. If she get's a job that offers group insurance, she will be covered. Since she currently has COBRA, she will not even be subject to any pre-ex waiting period and will be covered right away.

But she doesn't have a job, does she? Perhaps she can't work because of her condition. And COBRA can be enormously expensive, especially when you're unemployed.

We have millions uninsured, including lots of people who need care the most. We have people trying to get married just for health insurance. That's reality.

 

[American]

No known cure doesn't mean it's fatal, dude.

I guess that's true. Damn I can't believe I mispelled that. :doh

 

[d0gbreath]

Maybe we should just change the system to be 100% in favor of the health care insurance industry. Let them immediately drop anyone who's been hospitalized one time. It makes no sense at all for them to insure sickies.

Then, when they gain truly remorseless benefits unto themselves, we can all drop our insurance in a major boycott. Put the bastards out of business. A six month boycott by the people will send them all into bankruptcy court.

Count me in.

 

[buck]

Perhaps she can't work because of her condition.

Oh-oh. I can play the game too.

Perhaps she can work, but just realized that looking for "husband for health insruance" will get better headlines then "looking for job with good benefits".

Liberals like the relatively rare sad sack story, so she knows how to play the game. I'll give her that.

Blowing up the entire medical system for a very small percentage of the population doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[misterman]

Oh-oh. I can play the game too.

It's not a freaking game, it's life.

Perhaps she can work, but just realized that looking for "husband for health insruance" will get better headlines then "looking for job with good benefits".

Liberals like the relatively rare sad sack story, so she knows how to play the game. I'll give her that.

And you like to play the just assume anyone who has problems in life must be lying or lazy game.

I hope you get seriously ill and in financial trouble someday. Let me know so I can laugh at you too.

And how do you know this lady is "a liberal" in the first place? Or me? Oh, that's right, anyone you disagree with is a liberal.

Blowing up the entire medical system for a very small percentage of the population doesn't seem to make much sense.

I didn't suggest blowing it up, did I? But what percentage has to get no care or crappy care before you care?

 

[buck]

It's not a freaking game, it's life.

You started the game by making assumptions of her employability that were not at all supported by the article. Actually, you started the game earlier by making a completely false statement, that the only way she can get coverage is through the government.

I have known people that worked, but you might not have thought could. Someone involved in a very bad drunk driving accident many years ago, someone who had brain damage from forceps crushing her skull during delivery. Someone who had a bad stroke. All people that have had a job and were able to obtain insurance - not through the government.

I didn't suggest blowing it up, did I? But what percentage has to get no care or crappy care before you care?

You're right, I assumed you either liked the bill that was going through congress, or thought it didn't go far enough.

If you thought either of those, then yes, you pretty much supported blowing up the current system.

If you didn't think either of those, then I was wrong and made an incorrect assumption.

 

[Erod]

There is a way to address the needs of this woman without completely turning the current healthcare system upside down and creating trillions in debt.

But Obama doesn't care a lick about this woman. He wants to control her, not help her.