Advertisement
This came into my email box. A VERY IMPORTANT issue to anyone who rides a motorcycle! (or horse, or, shit, a bicycle!)
Click on this URL to take action now
capwiz.com/amacycle/utr/2/
House Bill Introduced to End Biker Health Insurance Bias
The American Motorcyclist Association reports that a bipartisan bill to end health-care discrimination against motorcyclists and ATVers has been introduced in the U.S. House.
U.S. Reps. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) and Ted Strickland (D-Colo.) on June 8 introduced H.R. 2793 -- "The HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act" -- would bar health-care discrimination against those who take part in legal transportation and recreational activities such as motorcycling, ATV riding, snowmobiling, or horseback riding.
U.S. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced similar legislation in the Senate: S. 577, "The HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act."
The measures are in response to action taken by federal bureaucrats that legalized health-insurance discrimination against riders and others.
"It's shameful to allow health insurers to discriminate against individuals who take part in perfectly legal hobbies and activities" Strickland said. "According to this rule, a person injured while drinking and driving would be covered by their health insurance, but an individual who falls from a motorcycle may not. It just makes no sense."
Burgess added: "The development of this bill could not have been possible without bipartisan congressional support and the hard work of the American Motorcyclist Association. I look forward to working alongside the AMA to get this legislation passed into law.''
On August 21, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to prohibit employers from denying health care coverage based on a worker's pre-existing medical conditions or participation in legal activities, such as motorcycling.
But later federal bureaucrats reversed the law, writing rules to allow health-insurance discrimination against motorcyclists and others who engage in legal activities like ATV riding, or horseback riding.
The AMA was outraged when federal bureaucrats went against the will of Congress and immediately lobbied Congress to right this wrong. Others involved in the effort include the BlueRibbon Coalition, Motorcycle Riders Foundation, ABATE of Wisconsin, ABATE of Ohio, the American Council of Snowmobile Associations, and the American Horse Council.
"This loophole written by federal bureaucrats must be changed," said Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations. "We need all AMA and ATVA members and all motorcyclists to contact the members of their congressional delegations to support legislation to fix this."
An easy way to send letters of support to members of Congress is through the AMA Rapid Response Center at www.AMADirectlink.com.
Click on this URL to take action now
capwiz.com/amacycle/utr/2/
House Bill Introduced to End Biker Health Insurance Bias
The American Motorcyclist Association reports that a bipartisan bill to end health-care discrimination against motorcyclists and ATVers has been introduced in the U.S. House.
U.S. Reps. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) and Ted Strickland (D-Colo.) on June 8 introduced H.R. 2793 -- "The HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act" -- would bar health-care discrimination against those who take part in legal transportation and recreational activities such as motorcycling, ATV riding, snowmobiling, or horseback riding.
U.S. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced similar legislation in the Senate: S. 577, "The HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act."
The measures are in response to action taken by federal bureaucrats that legalized health-insurance discrimination against riders and others.
"It's shameful to allow health insurers to discriminate against individuals who take part in perfectly legal hobbies and activities" Strickland said. "According to this rule, a person injured while drinking and driving would be covered by their health insurance, but an individual who falls from a motorcycle may not. It just makes no sense."
Burgess added: "The development of this bill could not have been possible without bipartisan congressional support and the hard work of the American Motorcyclist Association. I look forward to working alongside the AMA to get this legislation passed into law.''
On August 21, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to prohibit employers from denying health care coverage based on a worker's pre-existing medical conditions or participation in legal activities, such as motorcycling.
But later federal bureaucrats reversed the law, writing rules to allow health-insurance discrimination against motorcyclists and others who engage in legal activities like ATV riding, or horseback riding.
The AMA was outraged when federal bureaucrats went against the will of Congress and immediately lobbied Congress to right this wrong. Others involved in the effort include the BlueRibbon Coalition, Motorcycle Riders Foundation, ABATE of Wisconsin, ABATE of Ohio, the American Council of Snowmobile Associations, and the American Horse Council.
"This loophole written by federal bureaucrats must be changed," said Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations. "We need all AMA and ATVA members and all motorcyclists to contact the members of their congressional delegations to support legislation to fix this."
An easy way to send letters of support to members of Congress is through the AMA Rapid Response Center at www.AMADirectlink.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 10, 2005 - 8:45 AMThe ama does great things for motorcycling. Join and help us all out. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Health Insurance bill
Wed, June 22, 2005 - 7:03 PMwhat about ending bias against smokers, people who parachute, and circus acts too....the federal government needs to keep out of the private sector altogether....reeks of socialism -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Wed, June 22, 2005 - 11:11 PMI think we just need to pass a law that says 'you wanna risk your life doing something that might cost us thousands? Sign it away. Make the rest of us not responsible for your bills. Let us pull the plug or throw the switch if need be.' There are plenty of people who would see the signing of a wiaver as a macho act.
JMHO -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 7:26 AMUmm, I wholeheartedly disagree.
This bill is about that matter exactly, and of course, motorcycling is deemed one of those things that is "risk(ing) your life doing something that might cost us thousands."
The world isn't safe, I ride my bike every damn place, and I do not drive a car. What, we should let the government decide what activities are safe and acceptable? No fucking way.
Under the current loophole, you are already signing that "waiver" when you get on your motorcycle, which is utter bullshit. I pay for health insurance, and I absolutely will not accept the view that being a motorcyclist makes me unworthy of receiving health care.
Who decides what activity is normal and which is "unsafe?"
What next, "pedestrians get hit a lot, so let's make walking illegal?" Bicycles would be a logical extension, if they're not already included in the loophole.
This view is exactly the one we are up against. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 7:40 AMCancer. Cancer kills. We shouldn't give people with cancer health insurance. It's very dangerous! -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 3:24 PMWell Ann.
Let me tell you about Jan. Jan never smoked, never made any choices to put herself in danger, lead a calm and healthy life. She was a devoted and loving mother and wife and put her heart into her community.
I'm going to Jan's funeral tomorrow as she died of a cancerous brain tumor. Yes Jan did wind up in the hospital but y'know what? Cancer patients don't incur expenses that could last for decades lihe those of a quad- or paraplegic or for that matter a severe head-injury case, because they either beat the cancer, or like Jan the cancer might beat them.
Using cancer as an analogy for a choice to put yourself in harm's way is just assenine. Cancer hits even the healthiest most conscientious of people. It is not a marker of a person who pushes their luck.
I push my luck, you push your luck, anyone who rides pushed their luck. Take responsibility for it. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 3:38 PMI don't need the cancer lecture. My dad's got one of those fun, rare forms that they're still figuring out how to treat. And if he didn't have health insurance through his work that has paid for experimental treatments at a world renowned cancer research center, he'd likely be dead by now instead of out leading backpacking trips. I'm sure his treatment has been expensive. He's been through a few rounds of crazy chemo, and had I don't know how many blood tests and biopsies. He's in it for the long haul. When the health insurer agreed to cover the people at his office, they agreed to cover them all. Both the healthy ones who ride and never crash, and my dad and his expensive cancer treatment.
The point is that (most) people don't choose to get sick or hurt. Yes, motorcyclists sometimes cause accidents. But it sure seems that far more often, some dipsh*t who doesn't deserve their drivers license plows one of us down. *They* should be paying for those medical costs, not us. And that's a part of what group coverage is about. If evens out the playing field when some uninsured motorist causes you or me or any one of us a massive injury. I pay enough extra for other people's stupidity when paying my motorcycle and renter's insurance. I shouldn't have to pay for it again through my medical insurance. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:09 PMI'm not saying that each accident is our fault, -=but=- we know it is dangerous and we choose to get on a bike. We know that plenty of people are dumbasses and yet we choose to make ourselves vulnerable to dumbass drivers.
If I decide to run with the bulls, I'm not going to say it wasn't my fault that the bull gored me.
Simple as that.
As for the cancer, it's a bit more random than -choosing- to get on a bike. Don't you think? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:19 PMCancer isn't always random. Some people get it by smoking. Some people get it after contracting hepatitis C or HTLV some other generally avoidable virus through drug use or unsafe sex. For others, it runs in their families. None of those are random.
And I don't think anyone here is saying that riding a motorcycle is the safest thing any of us could choose to do. Just that there are a lot of more dangerous things people do every day that don't put their health coverage at risk.
And to top it all off... I don't think the health insurance companies are saying to the motorcylists "if you want us to cover you while you're on your bike, you have to pay an excess extreme sport premium of $X." They're just quietly not covering us even though we pay the same premiums as everyone else of our sex and age group at our places of employment. And that's not right.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 3:04 PMMotorcycles are the number one cause of head injury. Statistics show that motorcyclists have a vastly greater chance of suffering serious trauma than others.
We all know this, we all know that it is dangerous, through no fault of our own -other- than the fact that we choose it, yet we still do.
Insurance companies should treat us as they treat others, they assess risk and give you a fee. This is done. The fact of the matter is that insurance companies have successfully charged more for age difference and sex without the law stepping in. Why? The stats bear it out.
I would take responsibility for my decision. If I'm getting on that bike, I'm paying more. Now, I would not object to the percentage that I pay over others being put aside and if I can beat the odds after five years or ten, being reimbursed if I never collect due to a motorcycle-related injury.
We have to take responsiblity for our decisions and not put it onther to coddle us if we hurt ourselves.
IMHO -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 3:22 PMThe issue here is that we're talking about group coverage. You know, the kind you get at work where they can't turn you down based on your individual health. The kind where the group risk is assessed as a whole, and if someone in the company gets run over by a bus or kidnapped and anally raped by aliens, that's a risk the insurance company agreed to take on when they accepted the whole group. The loophole in the current law allow for insurers to refuse to cover people participating in legal activities - motorcycling, horseback riding, etc - but they still have to cover some dumb mother f*cker who drove drunk because he wasn't participating in an extreme sport at the time (or was he...?). That's ridiculous. Motorcyclists are part of the group. We should be part of the risk the insurer agrees to take on when they agree to insure the employees at the companies where we work. Period.
Also - any chance you've got a reliable source for this number one cause of head injury line? 'Cause I'm thinking I know of a lot of kids who fell down and bumped their heads without being anywhere near a motorcycle. And then there's good old Mr. Atkins.
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 3:45 PM"Statistics show that motorcyclists have a vastly greater chance of suffering serious trauma than others."
Could you back that up? I Googled and didn't find much for resources. I'm skeptical of any statistics involving a minority. It's easier to use a "greater percentage" on a smaller sampling:
More people drive cars - more people have accidents in cars. Less people drive motorcycles so less people have accidents on motorcycles. However, a higher percentage of motorcyclists might have accidents then car drivers (sampled against themselves). It's not a fair comparison. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:34 PMRead the fine print of the googling.
The motor-vehicle cost is far higher than the 'fall' cost.
i.e. ER visits vs. hospitalization/death
see below
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 3:46 PMI call Bullshit.
According to the CDC, 2004, motor vehicle accidents accounted for 20% of all Tramatic brain injuries. That includes drivers, vehicle occupants, pedestrians and motorcyclists. Falls are the number one cause, with 28% od all head injuries.
If falling is causing so many head injuries, it is CRITICAL that we all remain seated AT ALL TIMES.
Automobile drivers are involved in more accidents per capita than motorcycle riders. This makes driving a car a higher risk activity than motorcycling.
More injuries per capita happen to soccer players than to motorcyclists.
I should also point out that head injuries only became a major issue for motorcylists(and therefore the insurance company) AFTER mandantory helmet laws were passed. Before that, the rider that hit their head died. This saved the insurance company lots of money. You'd think that the insurance lobby would be for removal of all helmet laws.... -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 3:48 PM -
-
Check the Print
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:23 PMIf you look at the study you cited, the emergency department visits for falls is greater, however the number of hospitalizations for motor-vehicle accidents is 122% of that of falls, and the deaths more than two and a half times. So yes, if you simply bump your head it is technically a head injury, but the Traumatic Brain Injury statistics show serious cost for deaths and hospitalizations.
The National Center on Caregiving cites...
Cost of Care
The direct and indirect costs of traumatic brain injury in the U. S. have been estimated to be $48.3 billion annually.
Survivor costs account for $31.7 billion and fatal brain injuries cost another $16.6 billion (1991 dollars).
The lifetime costs for one person surviving a severe TBI can reach $4 million.
An estimate of medical and non-medical (e.g., home modifications, vocational rehabilitation, health insurance) per TBI survivor averages $151,587.
Average costs rise dramatically for those individuals who undergo rehabilitation.
In one study, after a 4-year follow-up, average costs for medical and long-term care services averaged $196,460 for survivors receiving rehabilitation services compared to $17,893 for those receiving no rehabilitation.
Acute rehabilitation costs for survivors of a severe TBI have been shown to average $110,891 per person, or about $1,000 per day. The average length of stay for these severely injured persons in acute rehab is about 55 days.
Medical costs are the highest for those who do not survive—(an average of $454,717 per brain injury fatality).
One study showed that supported employment for helping TBI survivors return to work costs an average of $10,198 for the first year of service.
THe stat that I have had difficulty is the breakdown of Motor Vehicle Accidents. I'm still looking. There is one stat that states of the motorcycle accidents ending in TBI, 90% of them are off road. Still looking.
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:06 PMI broke my nose at a concert (can you really call GWAR a concert?). I broke my knee in my living room. I got nerve damage typing at my desk. And one time I got a concussion without even getting out of bed. But I have never, ever hurt my head on a motorcycle.
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:09 PMPeople that are standing ought to be denied health coverage. What the hell are they donig STANDING UP? They knew it was dangerous. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:21 PMWhere can I order one of those bubbles to live in? Can it be both transparent and UV protective?
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:26 PMGood flow of logic. If that were the case, you know that the health insurance industry would already have put that into their numbers. There are thousands of stats people who crunch these numbers and make predictions as their career.
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:35 PMThe number of car accidents is less important than the number of head injury or serious debilitating injury due to auto accident vs. that of motorcycles.
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:21 PMSee, this is what I don't agree with:
"Motorcycles are dangerous."
First, you have to think the car driving is the "norm" and the people who ride bikes are making strange choices to take their lives into their hands.
I'd like to say that cars are dangerous. More people are hurt and killed in cars than motorcycles, and WORSE, more people are hurt or killed BY cars. Like, as in, "guns don't kill, people kill." Well, guess what, if we have to accept that guns are "dangerous," we have to accept that cars are downright murderous. So why are we all accepting that cars are normal, while motorcycles are "dangerous?" It only furthers motorcyclists from being normal, sympathetic humans.
I'm getting on my motorcycle, you're walking to work, that guy over there is taking the bus.
San Francisco has one of the highest pedestrian death rates in the country. That guy shouldn't be covered by insurance when he steps out to cross Market Street.
The bus? Eeeew, germs. No coverage for you. Plus sometimes there's gang violence!
Bicyclist going to the Financial District? Sorry, bubba, you shoulda hopped into your "safe" car! You might run into one of those trolly tracks. None for you either!
The way you're talking, I mean, every single thing that causes an injury is likely a person's own damn fault. So, no more coverage when your kid needs stitches from falling down learning to ride his bicycle or playing softball.
Wait, isn't that what we have insurance for in the first place?
These sorts of thing marginalize motorcyclists and endanger our rights. Perhaps you remember the lawmaker who propsed to get rid of helmet laws by forcing those who chose to ride without helmets to be organ donors? Sorry, but it wouldn't fly. We're not willing to accept second-class status. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:29 PMNow you're just rambling.
since there are more cars on the road you might come to that conclusion, but you must consider the per capita number, that's what the insurance industries do. If they could give the bigger number to car drivers, you'd see them doing it, they're all about profit, but you don't see them do it becuase they don't have numbers to back that up.
It is also not about class, it's about your choice, and my choice.
This is not a civil rights issue, the insurance company is not the KKK. You are not a victim of a conspiracy to keep you down. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:47 PMI'm not rambling. I really believe there is a fundamental problem with the acceptance of motorcycling=dangerous.
Life is dangerous. Motorcycling is as dangerous as you make it, as is bicycling and horseback riding and driving a car.
What happens in these health care cases (and it's not actually just a group coverage issue) isn't that people aren't allowed to get policies, and it isn't even that they are told they aren't covered when they ride to work.
What will possibly show up in your policy is something with language about excluding some recreational activities.
Then it's up to the insurer, AFTER you make a claim, to tell you that you weren't covered.
It's a grey area, so who gets to decide what's normal and what's not? Is my choice of transportation "normal" or is it "dangerous?"
Bicyclists have pretty much the same risk as me, but that's viewed as an acceptable transportation method.
And requiring motorcyclists to be organ donors has come up, within the past few years, so, yes, I stand by my view that our marginalization is a big problem. It is a geniune problem if non-motorcyclists are trained to think of us as people who have already waived our rights to safety and health care. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:00 PMYes but your choices in life change the statistical probability of serious life-altering injury. I know more people with serious injuries and life altering trauma who chose to ride motorcycles, hang-glide, fight fires, and take drugs [including alcohol], than I do of those who chose not to partake in any of the above. The probability -does- in fact change, that's what insurance is all about, that is why I pay more in auto insurance because I do not have kids and less because I have a clean record, it proves out in the math.
Look, all other things being equal, if you were to place a bet on the person who didn't ride surviving into their nineties versus the person who did ride, you'd be foolish to bet on the rider. I mean we're not talking about who's fault it is, were talking survivability. As much as I am more leftist- than libertarian I agree that this company owes you nothing more than the contract you sign with them. There is no God-Given nor constitutional right to insurance, there is a right against discrimination for race, age, religion, etc. but that's it. If you don't like it, take your money and start an insurance company for motorcyclists.
When you start it, hire some probability experts and forensic accountants, and they will tell you that you need to charge 'x' in order to survive. You will find that 'x' is dramatically higher than the average health insurance bill. If you try to charge the same, then you will go out of business. So if this bill passes what will happen is that the insurance companies will wind up raising everyone else's bill to cover us and I don't think anyone else should pay for my choice to ride since I know that my risk is higher. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:09 PMYou are making the assumption that the insurance comanees are playing fair and not attempting to profiteer on percieved risk.
I think you are wrong. You have thrown a lot of ideas out without the facts to back them up. You have neglected to address the fact that shareholder returns on insurance company stock is higher than it ever has been.
There is no god-given right to insurance, but there ARE laws that strictly govern group insurance policies, and this is an end run around those laws to enable the insurance company to make more money. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:22 PMThe industry I work in is all about catching the people who -do- make unfair and illegal charges against their clients, stock-holders, and customers. There are leagues of lawyers, economists, and forecsic accountants just chomping at the bit to get these companies and let me tell you if there were an inkling of evidence, they would sue.
Let me reiturate, I work with people who take these companies to task. It hasn't happened yet because the numbers bear out.
Those laws that strictly govern insurance groups are being followed by that group.
Shareholder returns are not part of my argument. Insurance is more than a simple one factor system, profit is not only on the backs of motorcyclists, but that was never my argument in the first place.
I did in fact come up with numbers on TBI and they came from a study you cited but didn't examine closely. It is a fact that more hospitalizations come from motor vehicle accidents than falls as well as more deaths. In this case you didn't follow the mony trail, the money is spent not so much on simple ER visits but hospitalizations and deaths and I did in fact cite statistics and source for that. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:31 PMI examined it pretty closely. According to that study all vehicle operators, passengers, and pedestrians are taking unnecessary risks and their activities should not be covered.
Ifd they want to raise rates foe all operators of motor vehicles, i would understand, but separating out one group is bullshit. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:45 PMNot according to that study. According to your interpretation of the numbers from that one study.
If you look at other studies you find information like the number of motorcycle related deaths is 3.6 times higher than that of automobile owners.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...-360.pdf
-
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:20 PMIncidentally, I suspect that living into your nineties costs the insurance company a lot more than some bonehead riding his gixxer off a cliff.
None of this is defined in your health insurance contract. This isn't about being denied a policy, or being offered a higher premium. The insurance company takes your money, sells you the policy, and then decides afterward what it wants to pay for. In the cases that have come up so far, most of these people didn't even know that their insurance company had excluded them until it was too late. If you believe that your transporation is a good reason to take the gamble, (or your hobby, if you ride horses or play golf), then by all means, ignore this legislation and continue to hope for the best.
If you think that the reason you are buying insurance is so that you have something to fall back on, regardless of what it is (and we have no way of knowing what will befall us, it could be a motorcycle accident or it could be a fall), then contact your lawmakers and urge their support.
I simply don't believe that the insurance companies are somehow benevolent, and will make the just decision for me when it comes time. Motorcyclists are an easy target because people have already been trained to think of us as outside of the norm, as risk-takers who've waived our right to safety and care. Car drivers do cost the companies more dollars, but there's no chance they're going to start telling the car drivers who wreck taking a drive up the Pacific Coast Highway that they're not covered because the drive was recreational.
You pay more for your auto insurance because of no kids and less because of your clean record, but what if after your car wreck, you were told they wouldn't pay because your drive had been unecessary, (recreational- perhaps you were going camping, instead of to work), or "dangerous" (perhaps it was dark, or raining)? -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:26 PMYou are warping the analogy.
All-things-being-equal
Given x and y what is your conclusion.
There are people who live onto their ninties and must pay a differential insurance accordingly. They pay more for life insurance, etc. This is not a situations where insurance companies do seniors a favor.
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:34 PM"warping the analogy"
I don't understand.
I also don't remember using the word "victim," "KKK," or "conspiracy."
seriously, same conversation here?
given x and y, I want to ride my damned motorcycle. I paid for the isurance, and hell if I'm going to let them tell me I'm not worth covering, after the fact. I don't know what other x and y we're talking about. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:49 PMThe questioned asked was who would you bet would live in to their nitneties [all things being equal] someone who rode motorcycles or someone who didn't. Same life, same health, same habits, other than the fact that one rides.
I didn't use any of the three things you quoted in that question. I asked an 'all things being equal' question and you grabbed one element and ran off in another direction with it.
As for the quotes, not that I used them in the 'not' context. Again you are grabbing at words and running with them. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:29 PMright, you used each of those out-of-the-blue phrases, peppered throughout this thread, along with"now you're rambling," and a few other dismissive, but not particularly illustrative phrases.
I could not and would not make a bet on living into someone's ninteies, as I know a LOT of ancient motorcyclists. Maybe not 90 year olds, but I really don't know ANY 90 year olds. But, yeah, I know several motorcyclists my grandparents' age.
Which has nothing to do with whether people deserve to be covered by the policies they buy. I'm just answering your question.
I don't think I understand that last paragraph about your use of quotes in the negative.
My guess is you are trying to defend the use of "victim," "KKK," and "conspiracy" by saying you were saying none of these were applicable. But my bringing them up in the first place was to point out that no one in the thread ever said them in the first place, it was just not a part of our thinking or discussion. All, your ideas.
I am grabbing your words, yup. "Again," nothing. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:39 PMYou're still not addressing the question.
You're focusing on the fact that I used these words instead of addressing the direct question.
Fact of the matter is that we've all been flippant and dismissive, but I've come up with concrete numbers, even by using a reference from someone who was attempting to dismiss my assertion.
Nobody else has come up with concrete evidence to support what you have asserted.
Instead you have only focused on the rhetoric with more rhetoric.
Me- dismissiveness, smart alec + facts + -= numbers=-
you- rhetoric, dismissiveness, feelings -=no facts, no numbers=-
Anne - girl card, tatoo card [it may satisfy you ann that I have no tatoos, but friends and family do], calling lawyer
Boychaos - numbers, misinterpretation, rhetoric
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:44 PMyou interpereted stats to make your point by focusing on one set of numbers.
I did the same.
Statistics can always be slanted to make your case. Your facts are questionable at best, and you are focusing on one point "discrimination should be allowed because it is a chosen activity"
I still don't buy it. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:53 PMIsurance companies give stunt drivers different rates because of their job, if you drive a delivery vehicle you get different rates, hell if you want to start a business in Iraq you are given different Business Interruption insurance rates. In California you are given different rates for fire or earthquake insurance, I don't see the difference.
-=If=- your policy specifically states that it -=will=- cover a mototorcycle accident, then so be it. -=If=- i the fine print your policy states that it will choose to cover or not, then that's the contract.
Remember, I ride, but I take responsibility for my decision to ride.
I actually focused on three sets of numbers with three different sources. You focused on one set.
No need to buy it, go without insurance and take your chances. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 7:06 PM>I actually focused on three sets of numbers with three different sources. You focused on one set.
I have a variety of sources. Would you like to reinterperate all of them?
>-=If=- your policy specifically states that it -=will=- cover a >mototorcycle accident, then so be it. -=If=- i the fine print your policy >states that it will choose to cover or not, then that's the contract.
My insurance policy mentions nothing about me slipping on a wet leaves and falling. It says nothing about me getting the shit kicked out of me in a bar fight and stabbed. It says nothing about me burning myself at a campfire. It says nothing about me breaking bones playing hockey.
All of these things are covered.
It says nothing about injuries on a motorcycle. What makes it right for them to choose not to cover this one subset of injuries?
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:55 PMI could not and would not make a bet on living into someone's ninteies, as I know a LOT of ancient motorcyclists. Maybe not 90 year olds, but I really don't know ANY 90 year olds. But, yeah, I know several motorcyclists my grandparents' age.
Which has nothing to do with whether people deserve to be covered by the policies they buy. I'm just answering your question.
I addressed it before and I'll address it again: I would not make a bet against the motorcyclist.
And, what boychaos said, about stats.
Actually, I think we're having two different discussions: you seem to be talking about whether insurers should be allowed to deny policies to riders, or charge them more, based on your point that motorcyclists are more expensive (I'm not agreeing, just summing up what I think is your point)
I'm talking about a loophole in policies that is screwing people over, at the arbitrary judgement of insurers, after the fact, and in a very quiet way, targeting (right now), groups they see as marginal.
The facts, the point that I'm asserting: there is a proposed law to close a loophole, folks ought to consider supporting it, since it directly impacts motorcyclists. It directly impacts a lot of people actually, but they may not know it yet.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:25 PMBut Rebecca, telling you you're rambling means some of us don't need to deal with the logic of your words!
And you, my dear, are definitely not normal. Normal girls don't ride motorcycles, and they certainly don't ride dirt bikes. Now put down that gun, and let's go to a nice knitting class I heard about in the Marina. I'll pick you up in my Hummer. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:29 PMYou're not helping their side Ann.
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:35 PMAnn, stay out of this, you're a girl. This is serious talk. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:42 PMBut pick me up for that knitting class anyway. I'll wait inside, since the sidewalk is a very dangerous place. And I'll crawl to the car since I don't want to fall on my head.
I hope the knitting needles have caps on them so I can't injure myself!
Knitting could be construed as recreational!
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:43 PMSerious. Right. I'll get back to being barefoot in the kitchen now. Would anyone like some apple pie? Or another can of Bud? -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:56 PMOh Ann....you play victim well.
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:02 PM>Ann, stay out of this, you're a girl. This is serious talk.
Ummm, Rebecca. You're a girl too. I think. I haven't actually verified that, but I'm pretty sure. Ask your BF to check, just to make sure.... -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:21 PMhe can't check. That would be dangerous and recreational. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:35 PM>he can't check. That would be dangerous and recreational.
Right. Any injuries sustained might not be covered. Doh.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 4:53 PM>It is also not about class, it's about your choice, and my choice.
No, this is not about a choice. This is about insurance companys trying to milk more money out of people.
>This is not a civil rights issue, the insurance company is not the KKK. >You are not a victim of a conspiracy to keep you down.
This is about taxing one group of people higher that another group of people.
Automobile accidents cost the insurance companies more per year than motorcycle accidents (because of a higher volume), but to identify and force all of the car users to pay more is going to cause a public outrage. AFTER motorcyclist, skiers, ATV users, etc are charged higher rates, they can justify raising the cost for car users (everyone else pays more, we're just evening things out)
It is not a conspiracy to keep anyone down, it a plan to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It's the american way, y'know. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:08 PMYour insurance bill is not a tax. This is not a welfare system that is run by a 'fair' government. This is a business that you do not have a right to.
You do not have a right to any business serving you because you say so.
Insurance companies are milking people, but the money isn't in motorcyclists, that's why they aren't covering them. There are plenty of problems with insurance companies, but this isn't one of them. Look at the numbers.
Vote for socialized medicine if you want insurance to be a right. Curently it isn't. You will find that even if we do get socialized medicine, certain people will get screwed. That's just how it is.
The rich richer is absolutely it. I don't agree with the suck of money that is happening either, but this is an illogical path, these costs just get turned around on the masses because these 'rich' people aren't going to foot the bill even if this issue becomes law, they'll just make all of the other policy-holders pay for it.
Sad but true. You want to make a difference, step up and do it. Claiming victimhood isn't going to help. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:23 PMIt's not that they aren't covering motorcyclists. They are perfectly happy taking my money.
They are trying to decide after the injury, what they think they feel like paying for. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:38 PMA few years ago I had to go to the ER due to a massive flu-induced puke fest. My policy said I had a $50 payment for an ER visit, waived if I was admitted (I wasn't). Between puking, I actually bothered to get online and find the nearest in-network ER, and that's where I went to finish out my puke fest. The in-network ER had me see an out-of-network doctor. The in-network ER had an extra charge because I did my puking after midnight. I called the insurance company the next day and was assurred that I wouldn't owe anything other than the customary $50 charge. Somehow, though, the out-of-network doctor's fees and after midnight fees still wound up coming out of my pocket, and believe me, I called and bitched and wrote letters to all the right people.
Now, this all cost me a couple hundred bucks, and isn't a big deal in the long run. But the point is, I thought I was covered, and I thought $50 was all I would have to pay. And I had good reason to believe I was covered, and good reason to believe that $50 was all I was going to have to pay. If that same ER visit had been for a motorcycle accident, and my insurance company decided that motorcycle riding was recreational and dangerous and didn't bother to spell that out (or I didn't have a choice of insurance companies, or whatever), it would likely have led to total financial ruin. Even though I would have thought I was covered.
Just thought I'd give a concrete example of what Rebecca already said. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:00 PMAllegory is not applicable to the population as a whole, if that were the case I could tell you of a 10 year old boy who was hit by a police car doing 90 mph, dragged for 150 feet while the car put on it's brakes and come to the conclusion that getting hit at 90 mph was perfectly safe for ten year olds.
It happened. I treated the boy after the incident. He went home after being checked by the ER doc. Oh yeah he was riding a dirt bike at the time. Just-one-incident
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:26 PMIt is an industry supported and regulated by the government. Insurance is _required by law_ to be offered to everyone.
I have every right to the service I pay for as part of my insurance through work. Making a law that allows them to deny me treatment that i have already paid for is bullshit. I pay them money for a service, they must provide that service.
If they were to raise my rates because i am cancer survivor, i could understand it. But saying that since i ride a motorcycle i am a higher risk and should pay more is not a logical aregument.
I don't want socialized medicine. I want the service that I pair for. I am not playing the victim. My employer and I pay $878 per month for medical coverage for my GF and I. I want to know that I am covered. Do i use $878 per month? no.
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:48 PMFederal law mandates that applications for health insurance must be considered and requires that each state make available a pool of insurers that will cover those with pre-existing condition that disqualify them from recieving typical insurance. HIPAA also contains text about preventing companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:51 PMAnd this whole damn thread is about closing a loophole in HIPAA that allows for some pretty ridiculous exclusions.
But I'm not supposed to be taking part, 'cause it's serious, and I'm just a girl. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:54 PMLOL Ann! If that were the logic behind this whole conversation I would have to recuse myself as well. Or did you not notice the name?
The 'girl' card doesn't wash here.
Again you're helping me more than the people you want to help. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:08 PMPaula: Again you're helping me more than the people you want to help.
Umm... I signed onto the AMA's letter writing campaign to get the law changed. Those are the people I want to help. This conversation is just a conversation. The outcome of our little talk here on Tribe doesn't make a scrap of difference to the lawmakers. I'm not here to help Rebecca, or Boychaos, or anyone else. I happen to agree with a lot of what they have to say. I also happen to recognize that no one is going to "win" this argument, it will continue until we're all blue in the face, and that it could use a little levity. I find it interesting that I'm the one you're choosing to respond to here, even though Rebecca is being at *least* as much of a smartass about it as I am. I bet it's because I have tattoos. Damnit. There I go being treated as a second class citizen again. I'm calling my lawyer! -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:26 PMWe're all being smartasses here, but you're not coming up with viable discussion material for the matter at hand. Instead you're trying to use the girl card, and the tatoo card, no wait you're just bing flippant and that's it. Okay, call your lawyer, she'll agree.
-
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 5:52 PMA pre-existing condition is a medical condition like HIV, or a tumor, or an underdeveloped conjoined twin, or being retarded. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:00 PM>A pre-existing condition is a medical condition like HIV, or a tumor, or >an underdeveloped conjoined twin, or being retarded.
They are all high risk conditions, and their treatment may not be covered. Like injuries sustained while motorcyling. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:02 PMbut a choice to ride a motorcycle is not a medical condition. Nor is there a law that states that an insurance must take you unless they are discriminating against race, age, handicap, religion. Motorcycles are none of the above. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:06 PMthis is circular now.
We all know how the others feel. I think it's BS, you think it's a good idea. I think it is descrimination, you don't. Whatever. I am going fight to get the loophole closed. you can do whatever strikes your fancy. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:24 PMMotor Vehicle Accidents cause most holpitalizations/deaths related to TBI => the two factors separate, see below
Hospitalizations=>Costs of TBI $48.3 billion dollars annually, lifetime costs of one survivor of TBI $4 million .
Deaths => Motorcyclists are 3.6 times as likely to die in a vihicle accident than those in automobiles => Medical costs are the highest for those who do not survive—(an average of $454,717 per brain injury fatality).
To make it circular, you would have to say that the costs then make people ride motorcycles.
I have no intention of winning, just calling people on their assumptions. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:33 PMOK, we can play this out a little farther. Do you think that it would be fair for an insurance company to refuse to pay for treatment of a person who contracted HIV though unsafe sex? Or hep C through a shared needle? Or cancer through smoking? Or injuries sustained in a suicide attempt?
All of these are "high risk choices". -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:41 PMDoesn't matter. A law is already in place, though I do believe that though an insurance comapny can't refuse insurance, they can adjust the rates. I am not sure of that though so I won't fight that fight.
Again. Moot Point. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:47 PMHow can that be a moot point? It is the crux of your argument.
You say that since we choose to ride motorcycles, we should accept the fact that our high risk behaviour may not be covered.
If that is true, unsafe sex should be in the same category. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:59 PMNot the crux of my argument, you're bringing other issues into play. I am discussing motorcyles. You are waving a red herring. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 7:06 PMPaula, this loophole is not just about motorcycles. Perhaps you need to read the document, but that's one of the scariest things about this loophole: it's completely vague and open to interpretation.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 6:49 PMI'm a little leery of accepting that TBI deaths are more expensive than TBI survivors. Is that what that sentence was supposed to mea? No, I'm honestly unsure.
But regardless, what about all other injuries? This conversation seems to have fixated.
My right hand hurts, is it from my throttle or my mouse? Am I or am I not covered? If I'm riding my motorcycle to work, is it recreational? Am I covered? Maybe if I slip while standing, it is covered, but what if I slip and fall in a dance club. Is that recreational? Am I covered? My coworker broke his ankle walking the dog. Recreational? He was covered, but is it just because the insurance guy was feeling good that morning?
And, to me, what this boils down to, is not a matter of refusal of policy or higher premiums (which a-isn't the matter at hand in here, and, b-ought to be handled anyway in the group coverage scenario) but the misleading factor, and the fact that the insurance company gets to decide the validity of your activites AFTER THE INCIDENT.
If my insurance company said "we don't insure motorcyclists," I would tell them to stuff it, and find a new one. The market would sort that out, when all the people who ski, play baseball, or jog also switched.
But they don't say that. Until. After. You're. Screwed.
It's purposefully vague so they can decide afterwards who is and isn't going to collect on the policy they paid into. And it can be completely arbitrary. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 7:02 PMWhat the study states is that TBI death cost more initially, more lifesaving efforts are used to try to bring back those who are on the brink of death that the obvious veggie, or the simple not retarded, or the quadraplegic/para that will obviously come out in that state. Of course the dead guy isn't going to incurr more costs than the long termer after initial emergent care, that's where the $4 million comes into play. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 7:09 PMWell ladies, it's been fun. I'm off to drive my statistically dangerout light pickup truck for which I pay extra because they aren't as safe as a volvo, but since I'm a safe driver I pay less....oh and then there's the girl thing, and th no kids thing, but at least I'm not in the military and I don't have epilepsy...no wait....
I take my chances and pay my due.
Don't worry, if I see you on the road, I'll still make room so you can split lanes safely and shake my fists at the guys that tailgate you because even though I don't think we should get an exception for the 'risk' calculation, I do still consider you part of a larger pack and will watch out so you don't get hit by me.
Take that as you like. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 7:22 PMAnd i am off to play hockey (during which i have broken over 100 bones in my lifetime, including 3 in the last month), but at least I'm not on one of my bikes (which have broken 18 bones, none in the last 2 years).
At least my insurance company thinks i'm safe.... -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 8:25 PMDo they still cover people who have sex? It is a dangerous activity... It can lead to STD's, HIV, pregnancy and death in child birth. Oh and the expense of having children. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 11:07 PMIt's already been mentioned. Thanks for joining though. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 3:15 AMMan my head is swimming. I admit that I didn't read all the posts - it got a little blurry when logic was brought up. Feel free to refute anything I say with a quote.
Automobile drivers are a higher volume so they pay higher dividends. With profit involved, whom are you going to listen to? The cage drivers of course - they've got more money to throw your way. Who cares if they cost more money in the end (because you can get away with murder if they don't have a lawyer). Why actually give the product if you can inch your way out of delivering it?
Today the Supreme Court decided that it's o.k. to transfer property from one private party to another. It was in perfect line with the Constitution that the Federal government has no say in local matters (specf. in this case when it was democratically decided by a local constituency in a reasonable manner).
Now, that may make it easy for a company with strong lobbyists in a community to influence the local governing body that one thing might be better than the other.
To me this says - it's o.k. as a private agency to base things on flawed statistics as long as it can be proven to be to an advantage to the "greater good".
It’s not about the greater good - it's about who's PR agency is better at influencing the badly paid city counselor who will be looking for a job when their term is done (heck local votes are as fickle as my bowel movements).
But it also says, we have POWER as a citizen. We can say, you are wrong. Yes, we can get up and say: "you don't know what you are talking about. We don't even have to tell people that we are working with that we are doing it.
Gawd bles America. No seriously. Get out there and vote. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 9:02 AMPlagerized from the net somewhere:
Doctors:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that's
80 million.
(B) Accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more
dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
So there's how stats get manipulated. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 9:23 AMReb,
Thanks for bringing the bill up and getting the word out. I think that was your intention, not to have this debate.
I'll interject one story, and drop out.
This happened to me. I saved all the paperwork (folder full) in case shit ever comes up again. I think this points to the heart of the argument. Ins Co's are in it for the money, regardless of who they screw. The arguments on both sides are trying to make a point. Paula saying insurers can pick and choose, Ann and Reb saying insurers are dishonest. Your right Paula, when they are fair and honest. I agree. But not when they fuck people over. Hence....
In 1997 I was hit on my bike. A K100rs, commuting home from work, by a drunk driver. Ripped my bike into 2 pieces. I got way hurt. There were tons of witnesses. The woman fled the scene. The cops caught her. Her insurance had just lapsed.
I had health insurance thru work, which i paid for. Group insurance. I also had way good bike insurance. Including un-insured coverage. They were excellent in all regards. They paid off as per the policy with no probs whatsoever. They kept to the contract we entered into.
My health ins then said, 'we want our money back, because you collected on your vehicle ins and that should have been our reimbursment first, not yours. If you don't comply, we'll be forced to take you to court'
The courts have called this 'third party recovery' and it's illegal in all 50 states and probably Uzbekistan too.
My mother connected me with a high powered attorney who wrote a letter to them politely explaining that and asking that if they have any further questions to please direct them to his office.
A few months later, they sent me another letter demanding reimbursement and reiterating the threat. I forwarded it to him and he sent a very threating letter back. That was the end of it. I called like 6 months later asking what happened and they said ' oh, that's all settled'
Some insurance companies honor their contracts. Some prey on ignorance and lack of knowledge.
My health ins co is and was United Healthcare. They will fuck people over to make a buck. Look at their financial performance in the stock market and know that some of that is due to their getting away with what they tried on me. My vehicle ins was GMAC and I recommend them any time I have a chance. They stood my their contract fully.
My point is, if you think for a minute that some insurers are excercising 'their rights' or, 'calculating risks', i say fine. Your opinion. That's not the same as breaking a contract.
I believe peoples opinion change when they have new experiences.
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 6:30 PMNot almost everyone has at least one doctor. There is a huge number of people who are without doctors, without medical insurance. I went without medical insurance for twelve years, and had no doc.
stats for the uninsured:
www.meps.ahrq.gov/papers/st24/stat24.htm
That percentage is above twenty million people w/o health insurance.
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 2:33 PM>It's already been mentioned. Thanks for joining though.
Actually, you discussed pre-existing medical conditions. I am discussing the activity that can get you those pre-existing conditions. Same idea behind riding a motorcycle. It *can* get you a condition, but then again maybe not depending on your practices and luck. Same for sex equating to STD and death in child birth. Besides, we all know that motorcycles are cheaper children than children.
Watching this thread I have one question for Paula. Is it hard to get up each morning with such a large boulder on your shoulder? -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 6:21 PMWell I see what you mean, however the direction is the same as what has been brought up. Yes they are both life choices, but this other life choice is a completely new topic and would create a completely new thread of ad nauseum yeah-huh/nuh-uh discussion.
I was discussing motorcycle issues because that is the issue at hand. When you introduce an analogy that does not relate to the specific subject, rather a subject that you believe is lateral we then run into fallacy.
I won't tell you that -some- high-risk activity by choice is okay and others is not. What I'm telling you is that the industry tries it's darndest to assess people by their respective risk category. It is next to impossible to assess someone who is an IV drug user or unsafe sexually, if there were the industry would go there.
Remember, this is not a government service, this is a business. If you want insurance to be a right, lobby and vote for socialized medicine. Personally, I would prefer that, and you know what? In that case if everything were universal, then yes we should get coverage even for motorcycles. Just take note of the countries that do have it, in order to pay for it the tax rate would be high [I'm willing to pay], and some people would be excluded from treatment simply becuase they would be deemed a risk, some countries [that have soc. med.] don't treat prostate cancer after a certain age simply because it's a slow cancer and they figure that it's a waste of tax dollars on someone who might die anyway.
The reality of it is there are plenty of people out there who take no risks, lead healthy lives, and get no healthcare. I empathize much more with those people than I do for someone who [myself included] lives life on the edge and then decides that they have a -right- to coverage from a private business.
As for the ad-hominem boulder, I don't have one, but I won't be squelched by others because they don't agree with me. I won't back away because I'm in the minority, and I don't think that majority opinion equals truth.
I would be just as tanacious in a forum where the majority stated that motorcyclists are just irresponsible idiots, just as outspoken in a forum that made biggoted remarks about anyone, and just as strident over free speech.
The fact that people don't take the time to discuss these things, or write their representatives, or vote is disheartening. I commend Rebecca for bringing this up and sticking to her guns as well, I simply don't agree with her in this case. In addition, if this discussion has spurred people on to look up facts and think for themselves, then join an organization, or even write their representative and it happens to be the opposite of my view, I'm still happy.
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 10:28 PMPaula really Autos (really auto drivers) kill/injure more people in the usa than anything. Auto drivers also kill/injure more motorcyclists than any other thing. No one I know of is seriously thinking of disallowing medical care to auto drivers or improving their skills. Yet, you are fine with disallowing medical care and improving skills of motorcyclists. This is only happening because motorcyclists, horseback riders, skydivers... are easy marks. Sure everyone should have insurance but it is just ill responsible to withhold medical care to anyone in the richest county in the world (arguably) for any reason and especially for completely legal and responsible activates. You have the right to believe whatever you want. I have the right to believe your stand here to be reprehensible and call you on it. I support the AMA fully on this issue (and most issues). -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Sat, June 25, 2005 - 2:48 AMAgain, you are looking at the total number of accidents versus the likelihood of an individual getting into a serious accident. You are more likely on a motorcycle than a car.
I've come up with stats on fatal accidents being 3.6 times higher in motorcycle accidents than cars.
People make the mistake of thinking that these are situations where people are just dead, when very often there are still life-saving attempts made for them. I have had to create landing zones for helicopters for a greater ratio of motorcyclists than autos, I have more often treated motorcyclists for serious spinal and head injury than autos. Emergency room staff very often have terms for motorcyclists like 'organ donors' and their bikes as suicycles or 'la machine' for a reason. It's not because there is a conspriacy to martyr bikers backed by the insurance industry, it's because motorcyclists more often [per capita] have serious and debilitating injuries.
If we are talking per capita, consider that there may be more cars, but each person in those cars pays in to the industry and only takes out so much.
Motorcyclists on the other hand pay the same or higher rate, but cost the industry or would cost the industry [per person] more than an auto driver does. It is a simple matter of math.
These companies are just that. Companies. They have a bottom line, they are not the church, they are not Habitat for Humanity or the United Way, they are capitalists and are here to turn a profit. If you think coverage is a right and not a paid service, or rather that it should be, then vote for socialized medicine. What you will see is that the medical care and technological advancements go down in order to cover all. If an industry does not see profit, the will go elsewhere. Personally I don't mind. I am for socialized medicine.
You may find it reprehensible, but the numbers bear out. You may feel that it is reprehensible, but if you think it is a right, make a political change that is about the people as a whole taking responsibility for healthcare. A for profit industry is going to apply facts, math, statistical data, and probability to show the numbers. They have done it, and will do it. In the case where they cannot legally charge an individual more, they simply turn the cost back on everyone else. I think that is someone decides that they are going to live life more dangerously, thay should take personal responsibility for it, rather than turn it around and claim victimhood.
Medical care BTW cannot be withheld, you have a right to medical care, just not medical insurance. See the difference? -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Sun, June 26, 2005 - 6:54 PM<Medical care BTW cannot be withheld, you have a right to medical care, just not medical insurance. See the difference?>
This the lie. Noone in this country has any right to medical care. Medical care (behond ER) IS withheld from those cannot pay. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Mon, June 27, 2005 - 8:15 PM"This the lie. Noone in this country has any right to medical care. Medical care (behond ER) IS withheld from those cannot pay. "
It is absolutely the truth. I used to provide emergency medical care as a firefighter, I live with a social worker who often works in a hospital, in addition having gone without medical insurance for twelve years I had to get medical care on occasion and got it. You absolutely have a right to medical care. The difference here is that you do not have the choice of where ever you want and whatever you want for medical care.
There are plenty of clinics, and funds available.
You may ~feel~ it is a lie, but I have ~experienced~ differently. Over and over I have seen poeple say "I have no medical insurance." and they still get treated. At very worst, after necessary treatment, they may be transferred to a county facility, but you will get treatment no matter what. No hospital can let you die legally, this is a fact. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Mon, June 27, 2005 - 9:16 PMI really meant to stay the hell out of the discussion, because it's clear to me that you are going to insist on having the last word no matter what, but here goes:
Congratulations, Paula. You are a white woman with at least some college education and a good social support system who managed to play the system and get medical care despite not having insurance for 12 years of your life. Whoop-de-f*cking-do. We have the best public health system in the country in San Francisco. Poor people in the rest of the country are fucked. And uneducated poor people... well let's not even get started. They just don't stand a chance.
But if you ran your car off the road while driving drunk without wearing a seatbelt or carrying a driver's license, would you have been able to convince your mother's insurance company to foot the $200,000 in medical bills to have your skull reattached 4 months later even though, as far as I can tell, you weren't covered under her policy? msnbc.msn.com/id/4954303/ And back in the real world...
All of this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand: that motorcyclists (and people participating in a host of other rereational activities deemed extreme by people who wear expensive suits) who purchase insurance coverage can currently be denied coverage for injuries sustained while participating in those activities after the fact without proper notification beforehand. You're the one who made this into an argument about how motorcyclists should pay more for coverage because our lives are statistically more dangerous. You know what? I'll just accept that as fact for now. Riding motorcycles is dangerous, and we have higher health care costs than the average bear. Happy? That doesn't change matters. Nowhere in this loophole does it say "you must offer motorcyclists the option to pay an excess premium above and beyond the group rates already set for their employer to ensure coverage at all times." They can just pull the plug and say "oh, that accident last week? We're not covering it. That $400 a month your employer pays to insure you doesn't mean squat right now."
Under the current US system, insurance companies are free to charge what they like. They are free to charge the employees of one company more than the employees of another based on their statistical analysis. I'm sure that analysis already includes the motorcycle riding and horseback riding and other extreme sport participating habits of the demographic employed by said company. I'm sure the employers of professional racers pay a ton, if their drivers are insurable at all, to keep them covered. All part of the statistics. To then deny coverage to people based on the activities they were participating in when they got hurt is ludicrous.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice, Rebecca, who is the one who first played the girl card, is a girl, so lecturing me about pulling it out and playing victim when I was just responding to her smartass comment with my own smartass comment only proves all our points - that you're totally unclear on what this conversation is really about.
And again, would anyone like some more pie or another can of Bud? I'll try not to rub my dirty tattoos on you. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Tue, June 28, 2005 - 8:34 AMWell it's a nice conundrum to address someone with issues to answer and then accuse them of needing to have the last word.
As for the "white woman" with the implications if privelege and ease I'll quote another response from another thread... Oh BTW it was about 'no' actually meaning 'no' [I was on the 'yes, no does mean no' for those who want to villify] .
"1] you assume that I came from an upper or upper middle class environment and you are wrong.
2] you assume that I am 'white' or brought up in an environment of priveledge and you are wrong
3] you assume that my family has not experienced oppression and you are wrong.
21 generations ago my Irish ancestor came over as an endentured servant, fleeing the persecution of the English, lived his life as a servant and his children lived as servants.
My Modoc ancestors were the last free Native Americans [OriginalCalifornians] in this country and fought very hard to stay that way. They were outnumbered and outgunned but held off the federal government for weeks on end in the Marble mountains, only to in the end, relent and be absorbed.
My grandfather fervently refused to take an oath to McCarthy when he had begun persecuting Communists and by doing so my grandfather was branded a Communist. When that happened his whole family [my grandmother, and her three sons] was shunned by the community. Nobody would talk to them, teach them, play with them, or sell them anything. My grandfather had to go to another town to buy seed. Eventually he decided to remove himself [through his own death] in order to relieve his family of the stigma of the McCarthy brand, and then my grandmother had to run a farm, find a job, and raise her three sons alone.
My father was fervently active in the civil rights movement and we had our phones tapped by the FBI on more than one occasion.
I had been homeless at thirteen and have had to deal with all sorts of classist assumptions.
I find it ironic that you universally try to 'universalize' me by assuming I am priveleged or without struggle because you presume to see a white middle class woman. Do not speak with authority of that which you do not know. "
Also I do not live in San Francisco and the policy of hospitals being held liable for not treating or ~finding treatment~ for all who enter their emergency rooms is still nation-wide.
In addition, On-Lok [an Asian Cultural Service, but not limited to those who are of asian descent] has a comprehensive clinic and offers free service to those who can't afford it, oh but it is in San Francisco. There are plenty of other community based services, you just have to make the effort to find them. The California Healthcare Foundation has grants as well. It's out there.
As for my college education, yup I got one, but not becasue a family member set up a trust fund. I got it because I borrowed money from a federal program available to all races and creeds and I won't be ashamed for working my ass off and going into debt for it.
As for running off the road while driving drunk, without wearing a seatbelt or carrying a driver's license...I can only say that some define Karma as the result of dropping a hammer while holding it above your foot.
I had addressed what you said was not being addressed by saying that these companies have a right to deny in those circumstances if it is in the policy on the outset, -=and=- that it is a perfectly feasable and reasonable business decision to do so. I came up with numbers, and facts. Others have yet to come up with viable counters to those numbers.
Again, these are businesses not government services, if you think it should be a government service like military, police, and fire protection [which I do] then push for socialized medicine. You will find however that the system will then become very untiltarian and there will be several people who will 'fall through the cracks' because the cost of care is so high.
Rebecca may have started the 'girl card' thing but you ran with it and if you're offended by my calling you on it, that's your cross to bear. -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Tue, June 28, 2005 - 12:18 PMWow, Paula. Talk about playing the victim well!
Nowhere did I make any assumptions about your economic class. You sure do look white in that wee little avatar of yours (and an Irish background would seem to back that up), I know you've been to college 'cause you said you were a firefighter and performed emergency medical care in that role, and I have reason to believe you've got a decent social support system 'cause you live(d) with a social worker - who but a social worker is better connected to get people the medical care they need? Your profile says you live in the Bay Area, which puts you near some of the best free health care this country has to offer. No assumptions were made, at least by me.
I'm not offended by you calling me on playing the girl card. That is so the wrong word, here. I'm just pointing out that it seems to show that you aren't thoroughly reading other people's posts before making knee jerk reactions. It seems a little silly for me to be offended at someone's reaction to me and Rebecca playing smartass, which, when you get down to it, was our knee jerk reaction to your knee jerking. (Not that I mean to speak for you, Rebecca, but that's certainly what I read from your posts once this conversation fell to sh*t.) -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Tue, June 28, 2005 - 9:01 PMAnne,
You just chided me for something which was a simple answer to your ignorant assumption. I am not a victim, I am simply pointing out that you have made a mistake invoking my being 'white' and having a 'social support system' and implied that somehow this is what allowed me to 'work the system'. There is no reason to assert that I am 'white' other than to say that somehow this was what got me to where I am today. I have worked hard and made a difference in my own life for me. It seems that rather than sticking to the issue at hand, you prefer to use the tactics of red herring and ad hominem. I have come up with numbers. I have come up with facts. You have assumed that you know my background and tried to make your argument based on that assumption.
Why point out the issue of the 'girl card' which by the way you still ran with, if you were not affected? It seems rather inconsistent to keep bringing it up. As for my not reading other posts, well I read them and Rebecca actually had an argument to speak of, you keep at the ad hominem but with no substance to the argument at hand with which to discuss.
Oh and BTW, this roommate of mine [the social worker] has only been a roomie since November, it happened to be the same day that I got medical benefits. I did not have any more access to the social work system than any other person. I don't understand why you insist on making innacurate assumptions and running with them rather than addressing the facts of the issue.
-
-
-
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Tue, June 28, 2005 - 11:48 AM<It is absolutely the truth.>
Lie
<No hospital can let you die legally, this is a fact.>
Not letting someone die and providing medical/health care are two completely different things.
It's pretty clear you believe anyone that can't pay would help us all out by dieing. Despicable -
-
Re: Health Insurance bill
Tue, June 28, 2005 - 1:17 PMYou've manipulated what I said.
You have yet to come up with anything other than 'Nuh-uh'.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Health Insurance bill
Sun, January 21, 2007 - 1:23 PMThis information may seem out of place at first but it will add to the general topic. In 2006, the cost of disability benefits for working age Americans (individuals who are unable to sustain substantial gainful employment for medical reasons) exceeded $300 billion. I have worked with this population in one manner or another for 37 years and there is a story to be told.
Workers who most often become ill and are unable to be gainfully employed, have worked in occupations that have the highest injury/illness rates yet the lowest rates of employer available health insurance. They get sick, family members get sick, can't get medical care or medicines-common illnesses go untreated and become disabilities. For example: high blood pressure untreated becomes a stoke or diabetes left untreated becomes an amputation.
These employers (chicken plants for example) are passing on the cost of health care to the public. The public (taxpayers) are paying for the expensive end of medical care-untreated problems that have grown more serious and have become disabilities. The average time it takes for a disabled worker to get disability benefits is 24 months. During that time, health declines and families undergo stress that breaks families apart.
In fact we do have national health insurance through this program it's just that it is provided in about the most inefficient method that we might imagine. While I provide my employees with excellent insurance which costs me $400 per employee, I also pay income tax that pays for what other employers avoided-we all do.
Health insurance companies are not in the business of providing health care-rather they are in the business of making a profit for investors which is ok.
I