Which test? The stress test, or the CT?
Tu quoque, anyone?
Originally Posted by SexyBritneyJ
A "stress test" .. you being in Memphis and not traveling to Texas. Back to the program ...
I could go back and get on the merry-go-round, but ....
SB .. you are correct about the "pre-existing" propensity for health insurance carriers to NOT cover "experimental" procedures, equipment, and pharmaceuticals, but generally speaking those things can be obtained through educational hospitals and institutions that engage in their development and early usage for extreme cases without charge if one is willing to be a human "lab rat" ... those decisions were customarily made internally and were excluded, along with many other procedures, under Medicare and Medicaid.
What is different now under the ACA is a prioritizing of resources, physical, personnel, and funding, toward what is identified by THE SECRETARY (the government) as "preventive" procedures and generic pharmaceuticals....which means that those with "pre-existing conditions" that might REQUIRE some of the developing, extreme treatments are not going to be treated based on the decision of an "IRO" ("Independent Review Organization) that so far as extremely limited and narrow judicial review, if any for all practical purposes.
In the ACA it is not called a "Death Panel" so anyone who says there are not "Death Panels" is literally correct .. if one does a word/phrase search of the ACA. Is the name "scary" yes ... is the name "inciteful" .. yes ... is that a practical result of the authority and power of the life and death decision making ... yes.
Even a convicted serial killer gets an appeal in the court system,
.......... whether one agrees with it or not. It's called "due process"!
What is "unsettling" about the discussion of the IRO's is that the sales pitch (snake oil) is couched in terms of being "good for the consumer" ... but that has not been the history of decision making with Medicare or Medicaid ... and private carriers.
It's like the "taxes" put on consumers and employers ... touted to be "therapeutic" to the goal of providing insurance for "everyone" and offsetting the costs to the consumers who do carry insurance.
Really? Can anyone think of a "tax" that is imposed to control trade?
Does it work? What do we get for it ....
Shirts with sleeves odd sizes, button holes out of alignment with cheap buttons that crumble after repeated dryings,, short tails that don't stay tucked, and threads hanging off here and there that must be clipped, and sizes that don't match what we were wearing.
Inferior products for not much less than we pay for "U.S. made"!
Who gets to keep their "superior insurance products" ("Cadillac plans) with EXEMPTIONS?
Obaminable and family, both houses of Congress and their staff, all Federal employees, and ...
..........THE UNIONS, et al
The actual goal (they have reportedly said so privately) is their desire for a "one horse" health insurance program. Meaning for those "grunts" who don't benefit from an exemption from THE SECRETARY, a "one size fits all" health insurance program like Medicare or Medicaid, while the "privileged" get "Cadillac Plans"! The "Cadillac owners" get the freeway to good preventive care and good corrective care, while the "Pinto owners" gradually die off because they have been provided inferior preventive alternatives and minimal "corrective care," which actually saves money ... as one or two posting on here have suggested!
What good does it do to cover a "pre-existing condition" if one lacks quality maintenance and corrective care to address the issues related to their "pre-existing condition"?
