snowbunny

I know.... if only they could get the same level of care that Gabby Giffords will get... I thought of this at the time of the shootings, but did not mention it because it would be "making political hay" out of "one nutter's actions." Well - the combination of no universal health care and "one nutter's actions" is far worse than one of those things alone.

snowbunny

This depends. If it's found to be the federal government intruding on states' rights, and that the state has a right to regulate / force health insurance, then the unconstitutionality of the federal mandate would not invalidate the state mandate. So - it depends.

Rete

This has happened to my husband twice and we were never concerned about the cost. But then we have health insurance.

I mention this because of what you wrote above. You don't specify whether someone has or does have health insurance.

Cape Blue

My partner and I have health insurance provided by our employer - doesn't mean that her brain scan isn't going to costs us around $1,500 in uncovered expense though.

Rete

That's because you have shit health insurance. Wouldn't cost us a penny.

Unfortunately, all healthcare policies are not equal.

snowbunny

Nor is access to non-shit healthcare policies at all equal. If it were, I'm fairly certain nearly everyone would have a non-shit policy.

Sally Redux

There you have it, the mindset that means it will never change here.

Rete

Especially if it were employeR provided.

Can't fathom why they would be billed for a brain scan if the test were mandated by the doctor to diagnose a health concern. If you go to a health care center that is within your plan they are to accept your coverage as payment in full (less your deductible if you have one). Perhaps this couple has a $1500 deductible before tests will be paid for.

cluedweasel

My last visit to the ER (hopefully my first and only one) led to a bill of over $3,500 and I do have health insurance. It costs me (and someone who is self-employed) $738 for myself alone. My wife doesn't even try to get insured. The cost would be prohibitive in the least.

When I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes a few months back, what was the insurance co. first reaction? Of course, it was to suspend my health insurance and do an in-depth review of all my health records to see if there was any evidence that it was pre-existing. It took them 4 months and in that time I had no access to any of the benefits of the plan but I still had to pay my $700+ a month.

When I first moved to the US, I thought it would be the attitude to guns that I would have difficulty with. Now I'm here, I don't find that at all though. I dislike guns intensely, but I get it, even though I don't agree with it. The attitudes to health care I find totally perplexing though. I work in health care IT and I still don't understand it.

Leslie

Insurance policies exclude things all of the time. All they have to do is say "we don't cover that". It doesn't matter whether a doctor says you need it or whether you go to an in-network facility. If the policy isn't written to cover it, you are screwed.

It's good that you have good insurance but many do not.

Rete

You are talking nonsense, Sally

You don't know me, apparently, so don't think you know what I'm thinking or what my mindset is.

I want National Healthcare for all USC regardless of their economic status in the US. Why should those on welfare by the only ones to be given healthcare by the government. I would vote for it in a NY Minute if the bill were up for a general vote and the provisions were fair and just.

Rete

I've never meet anyone in any state of the union who had health insurance that said that they would not cover something, i.e. a test. I have seen where they don't cover experimental treatments but it is the norm that healthcare policies do cover mandatory diagnostic tests.

Leslie

I'm not trying to be argumentative, Rete. But they do and it all the time and it has happened to me. I'm not going to go into details but I can promise you it was not experimental, or elective, by any stretch of the imagination.

And, having worked on the other side of the desk, I have dealt with many insurance companies (as the patient advocate) that do this very thing. It used to be the exception but, in over approximately the last ten years, it has become the rule.

Bob

It has been a bit of a concern for us....and we do have "very good" health insurance, and it does cost us a very fair whack of cash.

Steerpike

I believe, in CA, you don't have to have auto-insurance. You have to have 'financial responsibility'. I don't know the details but I think it means, simplistically, that you can post a bond for a pile o' dough and say, that money will be used to pay my responsibilities in the event I am required to do so'. No idea if this is CA only, or Federal.

Also - you don't (I don't think!) have to have insurance for YOURSELF; only for your responsibility to OTHERS. That is - you only have to have liability insurance. So the analogy doesn't necessarily hold.