Posted on 11/22/2004 11:55:48 AM PST by Born Conservative
Why should insurance companies be forced to insure someone with serious medical liabilities?
I don't know that I'd object to this, if it was restricted to addictive, serious abuse-prone drugs. It's getting hard for patients who really do need potent painkillers to get them, because doctors are afraid of getting caught up in a situation where an abuser is getting scripts from a bunch of different doctors. If doctors had this system to rely on, they might be a lot quicker to write scripts for patients who show signs of really needing them. The access should be at the pharmacist level, so that pharmacists can alert doctors about patients who already recently filled a bunch of similar scripts from other doctors, and get the new script cancelled.
Maybe insurance companies should change their names to "Premium Collection Company" instead of "Insurance Company".
Maybe you'll get an opportunity to mull that over when you or someone you love is diagnosed with cancer, diabetes or another chronic illness. Up until this moment, I never would have wished what I've been through on another soul. But in your case, I'll make an exception.
If insurance companies can't handle demand, then they ought to get out of the business.
Anyone in the House or Senate that supports this should be recalled by the stupid people who elected them.
No, it's not. C'mon.
So, do you think health care is a right?
A right? Sure. An entitlement? Nope.
There's a difference. Learn to understand what it is.
This is Big Brother raised to an exponential power. We already have a big euthanasia movement in this country (with "assisted suicide" in several Western states) simply because doctors are not allowed to *do their job* and prescribe adequate levels of pain relief, all because of the bogus "War on Drugs." I suppose it's better for sick people to kill themselves. It's also obviously better to have government records of *private* medical records.
Well one website I saw said it was. It's on the internet, it must be true.
I was looking up other websites to back up my point and I can't find anything with looks official. I did find one which listed prozac but didn't have it listed as a schedule IV, but did have other drugs explicitly listed as schedule IV.
Looks like I probably was wrong.
See my post 13, which the House bill includes any drug (B) identified by the State involved as a drug subject to the monitoring program of the State under this section.
They could include anything.
I think GA already does some type of controlled substance monitoring.
Doctors are already nervous about prescribing controlled meds, this isn't going to help. It will only make things worse.
What happens to the child that develops cancer at a young age and the parents do not have the means to afford treatment ?
Maybe insurance companies should change their names to "Premium Collection Company" instead of "Insurance Company
Excellent Point. I wonder how many of you have recieved a rebate from your insurance company after 20 years of perfect driving records ?
Have you heard of Medicaid?
Well, sure. The situation is deplorable, I agree. I think the states have a legitimate right to do it--not the Feds, except for Holmes' whorehouse reasoning on the Commerce Clause--but I disagree with it. However, I live in neither Michigan, Texas, nor Georgia (although I have responsibility for Pharmacies in 2 of those states), and that is their right.
No problem. I shouldn't have been so short in my reply to you. I apologize.
A person could reply, "Why should we have insurance companies when all they do is inflate medical prices by a hundred times and I am denied converage and have to pay out of pocket for the insanely inflated medical prices that YOU support."
How does medicade work ? Is it for people that make under a certain amount of money a year ? My point is even if you your household income is over 150k a year without insurance and a very sick child how would you survive. Yes you could sell everything you own and beg from the community but then we would not need health insurance. I just do not like the government having this information in another one of their databases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.