(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 04:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] glitteringlynx.livejournal.com
Ugh.. I can't imagine putting a cap on the amount of treatment you can have for something like cancer, or that they'd even block someone from getting preventative treatment. :( It's inhumane!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 04:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pope-guilty.livejournal.com
That looks like it says the exact opposite to me- that they're getting those caps taken out.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 04:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Looking to fix an existing problem, yes.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 05:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sleary.livejournal.com
The way I'm reading it, the companies do not currently cap coverage. (They do other horrible things, like place insane surcharges on the employers of cancer patients, but not that.) The Senate bill would have allowed them to create caps, the Cancer Society quickly pointed out the problem, and the bill is now being revised.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 05:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pope-guilty.livejournal.com
That's how I understood it, I think.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 05:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] publius1.livejournal.com
Many insurance companies, including my own from my place of work, both have an annual cap AND a maximum lifetime cap.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 12:03 pm (UTC)
fearmeforiampink: (Politicians mind)
From: [personal profile] fearmeforiampink
In at least one place in that article they talk about not allowing 'unreasonable' yearly caps. Who gets to pick what is reasonable?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 09:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] martinl-00.livejournal.com
Traditionally? Health industry lobbyists. Is that important?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 12:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ambug666.livejournal.com
Yes, we have been unable to afford physical therapy for my wife because her annual cap ran out very early in the year. I want to say March, but that might be exaggerating. Sure, it's not cancer, but she's in pain because of it.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 05:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sleary.livejournal.com
That's awful.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 09:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gothpanda.livejournal.com
this is correct.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 05:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] publius1.livejournal.com
Okay, wow. That article has CHANGED from when I originally posted it. In fact, they're probably trying to "close the loophole" since it got found out and reported to the press!

Ah, well. At least the attention the media gave it caused them to try to fix it.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 05:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] falconwarrior.livejournal.com
You mean the effect of the media actually managed to change things for the better? Now THAT'S news!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 05:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] publius1.livejournal.com
I know, right?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jaundicedaye.livejournal.com
I need to stop reading posts on the Health care debate until after the sun is over the yardarm.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-12-12 09:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gothpanda.livejournal.com
Don't you know that if you get a horrible disease, and you can't pay for it, clearly you did something wrong and God is punishing you for being such a sinner? If you were good and virtuous you wouldn't get sick, or you'd be rich enough to pay for it, sinner.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Feb. 7th, 2026 10:47 am