Amercans get more for their healthcare dollars, but we could do better.

bave said:

Isn't that true except for those presumptively disabled? My understand was that many amputees, the blind, etc are often "fast tracked" past that hurdle and that these new barriers were mostly for the "back pain" disabled types that now dominate the system with Fibromyalgia, OMS, etc.

Click to expand...

Generally no. ALS and end stage renal disease with dialysis or organ replacement fast track you.

Amputation would almost certainly not fast track you. People with amputations work on the time. Particularly after they are fitted with a prosthetic.

In all likelihood.. this is why its so distressing for the patient in question. IF they were fitted for their prosthetic and received physical or occupational therapy after their prosthetic.. most likely they could return to work The delay in getting the prosthetic is creating a bigger financial burden for them.

jaeger19 said:

Okay.. the lower rates of depression and higher rates of diabetes detection and management are significant improvements in health..and will most likely result in lower costs overall. A two year study is simply not powerful enough to detect.. say.. the early detection and management of diabetes.. that prevents say a hospitalization and amputation of a diabetic foot that would likely years later if not detected.

The same with depression and the decrease in all sorts of medical costs due to less depression.

Click to expand...

Again, that is the Wikipedia entry, look at the 5 year study. The key part you are missing is that even after detection one of the measurable and meaningful health measurements changed, other than mental. Everyone in healthcare knows the fact is you tell patients what to do all day long and 95% of it is ignored.

Lose weight. Stop smoking. Reduce drinking. Stop with the heroin. Exercise. People don't want to do these things and they largely don't. Most diabetic problems are people who simply fail to manage their own diabetes. Just look at GDM rates and complication factors. You don't think that is being detected, aggressively counseled, and then summarily ignored? All the data in the world points to that.

jaeger19 said:

Generally no. ALS and end stage renal disease with dialysis or organ replacement fast track you.

Amputation would almost certainly not fast track you. People with amputations work on the time. Particularly after they are fitted with a prosthetic.

In all likelihood.. this is why its so distressing for the patient in question. IF they were fitted for their prosthetic and received physical or occupational therapy after their prosthetic.. most likely they could return to work The delay in getting the prosthetic is creating a bigger financial burden for them.

Click to expand...

This is why I asked about the nature of the amputation. A bilateral hip level amputation is presumptive disability and fast tracked. A single foot or hand, you're right.

I am sure the delay is a problem, I just don't think we are getting the facts. I have never heard of an insurer denying a prosthetic for an amputation unless there is something crazy going on. Either way, we are simply not being given enough information by the OP, she instead just wants an unquestioning lynch mob.

bave said:

No, but I have the internet. You should check it out.



Really? Looks pretty straightforward to me. Provide proof of disability to CMS and enroll in Medicare. Only requirements are 5 months of continuous disability and medical documentation. If you can't meet that burden, with the government, then what is your plan?



Ok, what's the delay? Who is the problem? What are the disabilities in question?



"His attorney". Why does he need an attorney? What is the dispute? What is the attorney trying to resolve and with whom?

Again, you seem to have a problem with private insurance, with medicare, and with Medicaid. So you have a problem with everyone in healthcare who isn't just giving you what you want, yesterday, for free.



Just going to ignore the entire analysis? You consistently want to ignore demographic differences when comparing the US to other single payor nations.



Which goalpost is that exactly? My original statement stands. There was no meaningful improvement in health, other than a small improvement in mental health, but there was an explosion in cost and usage. Please rebut.

Click to expand...

We pay ****loads more for similar outcomes. It isn't sustainable, and it has to change. Those who aren't convinced will probably never be convinced. I'm content to vote them out of the way.

bave said:

Again, that is the Wikipedia entry, look at the 5 year study. The key part you are missing is that even after detection one of the measurable and meaningful health measurements changed, other than mental. Everyone in healthcare knows the fact is you tell patients what to do all day long and 95% of it is ignored.

Lose weight. Stop smoking. Reduce drinking. Stop with the heroin. Exercise. People don't want to do these things and they largely don't. Most diabetic problems are people who simply fail to manage their own diabetes. Just look at GDM rates and complication factors. You don't think that is being detected, aggressively counseled, and then summarily ignored? All the data in the world points to that.

Click to expand...

Fine.. 5 year study... again.. five years may not be enough to detect an improvement in overall health expenditures when it comes to diabetics.

Diabetes adds significant costs to the healthcare system.. The more its unmanaged.. the higher risk of high cost medical bills like amputations.

A five year study would likely not be able to capture the improvement in costs. In fact..its pretty much true of all preventative medicine. We talk a good game about preventative medicine.. but we rarely like paying for it.. because what "it would have cost".. without that preventative medicine is extremely hard to capture.

AS far as compliance? I would submit that compliance is probably rather high when it comes to diabetes that is found during preventative health screening. If the person bothers to take time off from work or whatever, to come in because now they have Obamacare or Medicaid.. and start getting doctors checkups... its likely they are going to be compliant. As long as the costs are kept to a minimum.

As far as Gestational Diabetes. I have seen studies with as much as 79% compliance with glucose monitoring.. 60% or higher with medications etc. So no.. I don't think that its being summarily ignored. There may be other factors involved.. like insurance and the cost of medications... or things like teaching/education hurdles, or cultural factros. (non compliance tends to be higher in those with less education and certain cultures. ).

bave said:

This is why I asked about the nature of the amputation. A bilateral hip level amputation is presumptive disability and fast tracked. A single foot or hand, you're right.

b.

Click to expand...

I have bilateral hip amputees that work. And likely it would not get fast tracked.

I have patients that are paraplegic.. and they are not fast tracked. In fact..their medicare took even longer because in a couple of patients their social security disability was denied two times.

jaeger19 said:

Just to point out a few things.

First..it would be extremely surprising for an amputee..especially a young amputee to get denied a prosthetic, ESPECIALLY with private insurance. I would assume here the problem is that the prosthetic that was recommended or ordered had components in it that were not covered. and thus it was denied...

OR the prosthetist coded/billed the insurance company improperly. (though it could be on the other side and due to the insurance company not handling the information correctly)...

But the overriding point is this. Going to medicare for all..or a government program doesn't alleviate the problem with medical denials. Though rare..I have seen more denials in medicare, Medicaid and the VA for prosthetics. Largely due to having to bill and code appropriately.. or due to the insurance snafu in rare cases. But the reality is that there is simply no basis in fact to believe that a government system would alleviate such issues.

Click to expand...

When I first ventured into this thread, it was to point out that even a patient with free market private sector insurance was engaged in a monstrous hassle, even when it is clear that they are not attempting to defraud, or intentionally do anything else wrong.

Many detractors of single payer, or enhanced public option, or tiered systems, or ANYTHING other than what we have today, are fond of scaring people with stories of denials, popularly referred to during the ACA debates in Congress, as "death panels".
A lot of smoke and noise was made about "unplugging Grandma".

The insurance companies paid handsomely for their propaganda and it worked well.
I'm just pointing out that private sector insurance is actually NOT working all that well, even for people who followed the rules and paid for their policies.

It's been said that we want to keep things as they are, the status quo...that Americans "like their healthcare coverage".
Sorry but I honestly believe that the only people who actually LIKE their health insurance are mostly the people who are healthy enough that they don't have to use it for anything but routine care.

Now we can get into another 15 pages of apologetics, and you can accuse me of emotional arguments but at the end of the day, this is like buying a car that doesn't work when you need it to. I don't have to be an automotive expert, I don't want to be an automotive expert.
I just know that when I get in the car and put my key in the ignition, I expect the car to start and I expect it to take me where I need to go if there is gas and oil in it.
Likewise, I should not have to take classes in health insurance expertise, and I should not have to enlist the help of attorneys, bake sales and GoFundMe just to get the healthcare that I need if my leg just got amputated.

At the end of the day, if health insurance is too complicated and too fraught with a thousand "GOTCHA!" clauses and innumerable traps, red tape and escape tricks where the insurance company can try to get out of covering something, in the end, it is the users who decide if the product or service is usable.
And if it is only really usable for people who are relatively healthy, then people will agree that insurance companies indeed DO profit by denying care.
That's not a good recommendation for the status quo.

America's private sector health insurance companies are making Americans less healthy and more agitated by making their product almost impossible to use when it is most needed. Amputation is a catastrophic healthcare situation, because amputation is catastrophic.
It is life changing, and an amputee needs a prosthetic end of story.

And if health insurance companies have one job, for the patient in question, that job is to make sure that an amputee gets their prosthetic in a timely manner, without being on the verge of bankruptcy after having paid for their policy, and no amount of excuses covers up the fact that the average American does not anticipate things like having a leg amputation.

And no amount of vigorous apologetics changes any of that.
And I will not read any more apologetics. It's a waste of time, and it just creates more smoke to cover up a classic problem that millions of very sick people who have insurance encounter day in and day out.
I saw the movie "Thank You For Smoking" already.

Your arguments, and those of Mister bave, both sound like insurance industry lobbyists mounting a defense of the status quo.
And no matter how many of you apologists climb into these threads with your carefully cultivated defenses, at the end of the day, too many Americans in catastrophic circumstances are being denied what they pay for.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

When I first ventured into this thread, it was to point out that even a patient with free market private sector insurance was engaged in a monstrous hassle, even when it is clear that they are not attempting to defraud, or intentionally do anything else wrong.

Many detractors of single payer, or enhanced public option, or tiered systems, or ANYTHING other than what we have today, are fond of scaring people with stories of denials, popularly referred to during the ACA debates in Congress, as "death panels".
.

Click to expand...

Well..just to point out a few facts..one of which is that the OBamacare isn't government healthcare. Its not single payer. and as Greenbeard has so well pointed out.. in many instances.. it IS working for lowering healthcare costs and for people in America.

America's private sector health insurance companies are making Americans less healthy and more agitated by making their product almost impossible to use when it is most needed. Amputation is a catastrophic healthcare situation, because amputation is catastrophic.
It is life changing, and an amputee needs a prosthetic end of story.

Click to expand...

And to point out.. there is no rational logic to believe that a public sector policy would be any better.. particularly if its goal is lowered healthcare costs.

Your arguments, and those of Mister bave, both sound like insurance industry lobbyists mounting a defense of the status quo.

Click to expand...

Not mine. I freely and often state that improvements in our insurance system need to be made..as well as changes to our healthcare system delivery. However, I do not buy into your "free lunch" idea that simply going to a government system will make things better.

The problem with your diatribes is that you make assumptions about the US and foreign healthcare systems that are not based on fact.

Look... go take a look at Greenbeards posts. He agrees with me on this.

jaeger19 said:

Not mine. I freely and often state that improvements in our insurance system need to be made..as well as changes to our healthcare system delivery. However, I do not buy into your "free lunch" idea that simply going to a government system will make things better.

The problem with your diatribes is that you make assumptions about the US and foreign healthcare systems that are not based on fact.

Look... go take a look at Greenbeards posts. He agrees with me on this.

Click to expand...

I've said repeatedly that I suspect we will likely end up with with a tiered hybrid system of some kind, with an enhanced and robust public option, maybe an earlier buy-in for some form of Medicare for others, and a better set of reinforced ACA type quality standards for private health insurance.

Many people WANT a single payer system, and we may eventually get there, but it will be probably be a measured and gradual process.
Also, the simple fact that we're a nation of 330 million people, nothing will change in sudden and dramatic fashion, as it is too difficult to turn a ship that large on a dime.

All changes will result in some amount of unintended consequences, that is unavoidable, and I acknowledge that, too.
Nevertheless, the reason I have backed candidates like Warren or Sanders, is because they are intent on beginning the process in earnest.
But neither of them are kings or queens, therefore they need to work in as bipartisan a manner as possible, and they need to open to some amount of compromise in some areas. That said, their goals are still to reform and improve our system.

I harbor no illusions that anyone will be able to magically transform us overnight into a magical M4A or other single-payer system with no flaws and no issues, and I have acknowledged that in the past.
But, as I have also acknowledged, one has to ask for it all, in order to even get something.
If that "all" is single payer, then at least the effort is in the direction of reform and might yield some result that brings about sufficient reform, and something that makes a single payer option to at least some who need it and for whom an option like that is suitable.

In the end, here and now, no one has a crystal ball.
So, pointing the finger and portraying me as one that believes in "a free lunch idea that simply going to a government system will make things better" is absurd.
The government can help in many ways, but I've repeatedly emphasized the fact that "a government SYSTEM" is similar to both the VA or the UK NHS, and that we already HAVE more than enough private sector infrastructure in place and more than enough private sector health professionals that there is NO NEED to build a "government system".

What cannot remain is the current status quo.
The status quo is unsustainable, it is unworkable, it is too expensive, and it is too adversarial to the end user.
And America's health insurance companies have had since 1973 to make health insurance better, more user friendly, more affordable and more efficient.

And in the past forty-six years, all they've managed to do instead is to make it overly complex, unnavigable, unaffordable, and an overarching stress factor in an environment which is supposed to be focused on health and well being. And for people who are gravely ill or catastrophically injured, it just about borders on a form of paper driven soft terrorism.

I actually agree with some of the points you've made over the last few months but it seems you're too focused on attempting to put me into some category or box, so that you can create an image of some bleeding heart emotional hemophiliac who refuses to abide by the rules.
My honest answer is, at this point in time I do not even KNOW yet how we can best approach reform until I know who will be allowed to conduct the efforts. At this time, we have Trump and Trump Republicans in a position to direct healthcare efforts.

I know for sure that they are the worst possible choice.
Nothing of substance will happen unless those people are gone.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

So, pointing the finger and portraying me as one that believes in "a free lunch idea that simply going to a government system will make things better" is absurd..

Click to expand...

Hmmm.. you might want to read your posts:

checkerboardstrangler said:

America's private sector health insurance companies are making Americans less healthy and more agitated by making their product almost impossible to use when it is most needed.

Click to expand...

I note you don't say "some".. but make a blanket reference to the private sector. And so.. you obviously believe that going to a government system ( a non private sector)..would be better.

And as I point out. there is no free lunch here.

Don't get mad at me because you start with a bunch of rhetoric and then have to walk it backwards. I call out people on the right that make a bunch of rhetoric about the ACA as well.

The status quo is unsustainable, it is unworkable, it is too expensive, and it is too adversarial to the end user.

Click to expand...

That's not really true. For the vast majority of americans its working just fine.. which is why there is such resistance to change particularly when the change is not incremental or even geared toward those that need it.. but some overarching medicare for all.. program.. that scares the people that have medicare.

I actually agree with some of the points you've made over the last few months but it seems you're too focused on attempting to put me into some category or box, so that you can create an image of some bleeding heart emotional hemophiliac who refuses to abide by the rules.

Click to expand...

Actually you are putting yourself there with your continued over the top rhetoric that demonstrates that you don't have much knowledge of the subject at hand. It certainly doesn't help that you also seem to continuously cast others that have legitimate issues with your position as:

checkerboard strangler said:

Your arguments, and those of Mister bave, both sound like insurance industry lobbyists mounting a defense of the status quo.

Click to expand...

Yeah.. I sound NOTHING like an insurance industry lobbyist. I would defy you to ANYWHERE find evidence of such in my posts.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I've said repeatedly that I suspect we will likely end up with with a tiered hybrid system of some kind, with an enhanced and robust public option, maybe an earlier buy-in for some form of Medicare for others, and a better set of reinforced ACA type quality standards for private health insurance.

Click to expand...

This I find funny and shows how little you know about universal care systems around the world. The more "enhanced and robust" care options in nations which have options are always the private ones. The government provided care is generally the most restricted, limited, and lower quality.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Many people WANT a single payer system, and we may eventually get there, but it will be probably be a measured and gradual process.

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

All changes will result in some amount of unintended consequences, that is unavoidable, and I acknowledge that, too.
Nevertheless, the reason I have backed candidates like Warren or Sanders, is because they are intent on beginning the process in earnest.

Click to expand...

And thankfully, even the Democratic party knows that both Warren and Sanders ideas are unworkable and often unconstitutional. Neither will be the candidate, now or ever.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

What cannot remain is the current status quo.
The status quo is unsustainable, it is unworkable, it is too expensive, and it is too adversarial to the end user.
And America's health insurance companies have had since 1973 to make health insurance better, more user friendly, more affordable and more efficient.

Click to expand...

Oh, this is true, but in the opposite of what you hope for. The reality is the baseline healthcare programs are going to get worse (Medicaid/medicare) because of funding pressures. So if you are reliant on those systems you are going to get less care, lower quality, and bigger bureaucratic headaches. This will push more people to buy more and more expensive supplemental programs. The problem is the people in this country are largely spoiled entitled children who think the can have their cake, eat it too, and make someone else pay for it.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I actually agree with some of the points you've made over the last few months but it seems you're too focused on attempting to put me into some category or box, so that you can create an image of some bleeding heart emotional hemophiliac who refuses to abide by the rules.

Click to expand...

You've actually done that. You come here with third hand anecdotes to try and make a broad sweeping statement about healthcare while then supporting two crackpots who apparently don't understand the constitution, basic economics, or the healthcare system.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

My honest answer is, at this point in time I do not even KNOW yet how we can best approach reform until I know who will be allowed to conduct the efforts. At this time, we have Trump and Trump Republicans in a position to direct healthcare efforts.

Click to expand...

Right, because you want free stuff. That's why you are supporting the two candidates who represent the "free lunch" constituency. But you aren't a moocher, you just want free stuff....

bave said:

Right, because you want free stuff. That's why you are supporting the two candidates who represent the "free lunch" constituency. But you aren't a moocher, you just want free stuff....

Click to expand...

Just for the record... I don't believe that checkerboard "just wants free stuff".

Also I would point out that the rhetoric on the right.. that you spout.. the free stuff business.. is pretty far from the truth as well. Sure.. you bring up some good points regarding the healthcare system etc...

But... so does the left. For example.. the fact that private insurance often drops a person when they can't work..and it takes 24 months before you can qualify for medicare.

So take my patient. He got into a four wheeler accident when hunting. He hurt himself badly and needs back surgery. Because of his accident.. he could not work and so he lost his health insurance. He could not afford the COBRA to keep his insurance.

So..he ends up applying for disability.. and in two years will probably get his medicare….

When all he really needs and wants.. is to get his back fixed so he can go back to work. And in all likelihood.. if he has surgery.. he would be able to go back to work.

Our system doesn't work for this guy. And you trying to say "well he wants free stuff"... is not only insulting.. .well its wrong.

jaeger19 said:

Just for the record... I don't believe that checkerboard "just wants free stuff".

Also I would point out that the rhetoric on the right.. that you spout.. the free stuff business.. is pretty far from the truth as well. Sure.. you bring up some good points regarding the healthcare system etc...

But... so does the left. For example.. the fact that private insurance often drops a person when they can't work..and it takes 24 months before you can qualify for medicare.

So take my patient. He got into a four wheeler accident when hunting. He hurt himself badly and needs back surgery. Because of his accident.. he could not work and so he lost his health insurance. He could not afford the COBRA to keep his insurance.

So..he ends up applying for disability.. and in two years will probably get his medicare….

When all he really needs and wants.. is to get his back fixed so he can go back to work. And in all likelihood.. if he has surgery.. he would be able to go back to work.

Our system doesn't work for this guy. And you trying to say "well he wants free stuff"... is not only insulting.. .well its wrong.

Click to expand...

Anecdotes grow on trees.

The "free stuff" crowd is absolutely real and growing. Case in point, disability. Look at the data from the 70's to today, the number of people on disability has grown while the physicality of the work has declined dramatically. The jump in claims is primarily in ambiguous (ie: fraudulent) areas like fibromyalgia, back pain, obesity, etc. Look at the rhetoric from people who are constantly trying to get "the rich" to pay for all new social welfare programs.

bave said:

Anecdotes grow on trees.

The "free stuff" crowd is absolutely real and growing. s.

Click to expand...

No its not. In fact there have been multiple programs that have reduced what welfare paid for back in the day. We have all sorts of requirements, limitations etc.. that were not on back 30 some years ago.

This "free stuff"... that you talk about is a giant myth.

Sure the people on disability has grown from the 70's till today. First, our population has aged.. so more people in that 50-65 year old age.. not to mention our population has gotten significantly larger.

Second the physicality of work has NOT lessened. Not when you consider the repetitive use and the continuous posture of todays jobs.

The farmer back in the 1990's did multiple jobs during the day.. and was usually in good physical shape and changed position throughout the day. Now he is in a tractor for 12hours a day twisting to look over his shoulder as his GPS guided tractor runs a line up the field. That guy is more likely to have a back problem than his predecessor that was doing multiple different jobs.

The same can be said for a number of professions. Heck, the guy sitting now in a desk job.. hunched over a computer is more likely to have an injury than decades ago where he was physically working the floor in a number of different jobs.

THEN.. you throw in the drug testing and liabilities? Now you have tons of americans that would be able to work.. but they can't pass the drug test required for work. So they use a pain pill to deal with their pain after work and help them sleep without pain. If they went to work..they wouldn't have any opiod on board to affect their performance. BUT.. they will fail the drug test (because the test will pick up drugs as long as a month ago) and not be eligible to work.

Don't get me started on what's considered "fraudulent". What a load of crap that is. The average guy can't tell a fraudulent claim from a real one.

Look at the rhetoric from people who are constantly trying to get "the rich" to pay for all new social welfare programs.

Click to expand...

BWWAAHHHH... you have to stop drinking the right wing kool aid. Do you REALLY think that the fellow you see in Walmart that's using an EBT card.. with a dirty shirt.. and wearing flip flops... is being invited to the Senators birthday bash?

OR do you think the CEO and boardmembers of Walmart are being invited to that Senators birthday bash? Where they discuss the bump in money they make the beginning of every month from those EBT cards?

The truth is..its the RICH..that lobby the hardest for welfare.. they are the ones that benefit the most. Its where the money ends up. and to them..it IS FREE... you have trump lowering taxes... so they don't have to pay for it... and it just goes onto more deficit spending. So.. it just ends up in our rich bank accounts.

Ultimately its the wealthy that benefit from almost all welfare programs.. and ultimately its the wealthy that lobby for them.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Yeah, this IS real, it was posted by someone who HAS health insurance right now.
And it's NOT cancer, or heart disease, or stroke.
It's a simple amputee.

View attachment 67269322

Want proof it's real?
Ever heard of Robert Mitchum, the actor?
This was posted by his daughter, Carrie Mitchum.
It's one of her friends.
She gave advance permission to SHARE this.

Here is the original post.

Now tell me how we're getting better results.
This isn't some indigent homeless person. The Mitchums and their friends aren't what you would call "indigent" however her friend appears to have been thrown into medical bankruptcy...EVEN WITH insurance.

Click to expand...

Well first of all, Robert Mitchum did not have a daughter named Carrie. Second, if Robert Mitchum was still alive he would be over a 100, how old does that make his children? Third, Robert Mitchum was worth over 10 million when he died. I am sure his children had adequate funding to assist an in need friend.

Lastly, The Shriners provide prostetics for children free of charge to anyone needing them. Every healthcare provider knows this and would refer them.

BahamaBob said:

Well first of all, Robert Mitchum did not have a daughter named Carrie. Second, if Robert Mitchum was still alive he would be over a 100, how old does that make his children? Third, Robert Mitchum was worth over 10 million when he died. I am sure his children had adequate funding to assist an in need friend.

Lastly, The Shriners provide prostetics for children free of charge to anyone needing them. Every healthcare provider knows this and would refer them.

Click to expand...

Biography: Carrie comes from a long line of famous Hollywood personalities. She is the daughter of Christopher and Cindy Mitchum and the granddaughter of Robert and Dorothy Mitchum. Her brother, Bentley Mitchum, is also an actor. She is the niece of Jim and Petrine Mitchum and the great-niece of John and Julie Mitchum.

Oh...LOL, scuse me, she's his granddaughter, my typo.
Oh.. LOL, scuse me, did you actually read the post? Carrie Mitchum isn't the one in trouble.
Oh, scuse me, you really didn't read it, did you?
This isn't for a child. This isn't about a child in need of a prosthetic, and...

BahamaBob said:

"I am sure his children had adequate funding to assist an in need friend."

Click to expand...

...the person who did write the post HAS medical insurance, something else you would already know IF you had actually read it.
Why should someone else have to step up if the person already has insurance?
The problem isn't lack of charity, it's insurance companies not doing their job.

Anything else?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Biography: Carrie comes from a long line of famous Hollywood personalities. She is the daughter of Christopher and Cindy Mitchum and the granddaughter of Robert and Dorothy Mitchum. Her brother, Bentley Mitchum, is also an actor. She is the niece of Jim and Petrine Mitchum and the great-niece of John and Julie Mitchum.

Oh...LOL, scuse me, she's his granddaughter, my typo.
Oh.. LOL, scuse me, did you actually read the post? Carrie Mitchum isn't the one in trouble.
Oh, scuse me, you really didn't read it, did you?
This isn't for a child. This isn't about a child in need of a prosthetic, and...
...the person who did write the post HAS medical insurance, something else you would already know IF you had actually read it.
Why should someone else have to step up if the person already has insurance?
The problem isn't lack of charity, it's insurance companies not doing their job.

Anything else?

Click to expand...

Liars always get their panties in a wad when called on a lie. All the fake outrage and changing the goal posts is what I expect from someone who is posting a fake argument.

Your post said she could not get a prosthetic. That is not true. That is why charities exist. To help those in need. The Shriners help thousands of people in the same boat. Great organization that fills a real need. Her problem is not the insurance company it is being under insured. That is the way life works, if you don't have the right coverage that is on you. Try collecting on a valuable ring from your homeowners insurance if you don't have the correct writer and see what happens. You see insurance companies are not charities, they are businesses. Businesses are obligated to give you what you pay for, not what you want. You don't buy a Sonic and expect a Corvette.

Christopher Mitchum is also worth well over 10 million. It always brings a tear to my eye when people driving Ferraris whine about the needy. Why is it that someone else always needs to step up?

BahamaBob said:

Liars always get their panties in a wad when called on a lie. All the fake outrage and changing the goal posts is what I expect from someone who is posting a fake argument.

Your post said she could not get a prosthetic. That is not true. That is why charities exist. To help those in need. The Shriners help thousands of people in the same boat. Great organization that fills a real need. Her problem is not the insurance company it is being under insured. That is the way life works, if you don't have the right coverage that is on you. Try collecting on a valuable ring from your homeowners insurance if you don't have the correct writer and see what happens. You see insurance companies are not charities, they are businesses. Businesses are obligated to give you what you pay for, not what you want. You don't buy a Sonic and expect a Corvette.

Christopher Mitchum is also worth well over 10 million. It always brings a tear to my eye when people driving Ferraris whine about the needy. Why is it that someone else always needs to step up?

Click to expand...

More importantly, let's see a letter from the insurance company denying the prosthetic and why. This is very common in healthcare, people get to throw rocks at the system which can't defend itself because of HIPPA