Of what value are "free health screenings" to people w/o insurance?

[Duer 157099]

I often see these things, communities have a special day where they offer such free clinics, cancer screenings, mammograms, diabetes, etc.

But if people already are so low-income that they cannot even afford to get a screen, what happens if they discover they actually have a problem?

So they offer a free cancer screening and tell you that you have cancer, what then?

:shrug:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. Not worth a damn

speaking as someone who hasn't had health insurance since 2003.

[Creative]

2. You buy insurance...

[Forkboy]

5. Well, problem solved! You should run for president!

[Creative]

7. Well, you can't be denied based on pre-existing conditions. So yes, problem solved.

[piedmont]

9. Yes, you can. Problem not solved. nt

[AlabamaLibrul]

11. Please allow me to "move the goalposts" slightly from the OP.

What good are "free health screenings" to those who can't afford *health care*?

[Duer 157099]

15. No, that actually was the original goalpost

I should have used the correct phrase, health care. :thumbsup:

[AlabamaLibrul]

19. All the same then. Those who say that this "HCR" is a panacea seems to forget that

there are tiers to affordability in our "system":

Those who have insurance and can use it whenever they like.

Those who have insurance with an incredibly high premium or deductible - generally aren't using health services as much as tier 1. Not much benefit of free health screenings - but perhaps worth going to for checking on major issues.

Those who have no insurance but, generally speaking, can go to the doctor if they need medical attention. I could dig up the money for it if I really needed to. These people are best served by free health screenings.

Those who can not afford any piece of the "best health care system in the world". Considering the living conditions - from housing to affordable diet - of those in poverty, chances are a free health screening is just another thing to be depressed about.

[Shandris]

35. Could you kindly direct me to this insurance that has 100% payment please?

I think I'd like to buy some. I KNOW my liver would.

[jayfish]

12. So let me see if I get this.

You go for a free screening and find out you have a chronic condition. You go to, as you say, "buy insurance" and are denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. ...the condition you were diagnosed with initially. That sounds awesome! :eyes:

[Creative]

17. Except that...you can no longer be denied based on pre-existing conditions.

[jayfish]

18. Are we talking about today or 2014?

...if the rubbish HCR law even makes it that far.

[dflprincess]

20. They may not deny you, but the only way you'll be able to buy a policy

is to take one with out of pockets that are so high you still won't be able to afford care.

An odd screening test doesn't necessarily mean you have a chronic condition but it can cost several thousand dollars to find out the funny spot on the mammogram is benign - and you're actually healthy. But going forward the insurance company won't consider the lab result, they assume that even a benign biopsy puts you in a high risk group.

[ananda]

3. So they'll know what they can't pay for?

What a weird bizarre world we live in.

[leftstreet]

4. You can start sheltering your wealth and secure the future for your heirs

oh...wait

[Forkboy]

6. So you can focus your stress on something tangible.

[DawgHouse]

42. Exactly! n/t

[grilled onions]

8. Another Fine Print Item

IF you do go for a test(for example a mammogram) you must put down your doctor. There is no where to fill in a place if you have none. Does this mean they won't take you? Won't notify you if they find something? And if they do,as said above you have little ability (financial or otherwise) to have the problem taken care of. All these so called benefits,ideas,plans are created by the healthy/wealthy or stock members finding the shortest way to their pockets.

[Withywindle]

10. I used to avoid these like the plague.

After all, all they'd really be able to do for me is give me a record of a pre-existing condition that would make things more difficult should I ever be able to afford insurance again.

The ban on the pre-existing conditions is really helpful, but it still doesn't solve the basic problem, which is all the money I don't have.

[Crazy Dave]

14. The dirty little secret no one talks about is...

Sure, they have to accept your pre-existing condition but you won't pay the same premium as a healthy person. It's going to be like auto insurance to well...protect the insurance companies of course. If you are high risk it will be mandated that you pay higher premiums and deductibles. Or pay a fine under the new laws.

[subterranean]

21. Are you assuming that the law will be changed to allow that?

Under the law as it currently stands, insurance companies will not be allowed to charge you more based on your health status once the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions takes effect in 2014. They'll be allowed to charge more based on age, but not pre-existing conditions. (Of course, that may change in the future, and I suspect it will.)

[soryang]

25. Do you have a citation for that?

It is my understanding that the insurers are allowed to charge 300% higher premiums for pre-existing conditions.

[subterranean]

31. Why yes, I do -- the law itself.

The PPACA clearly states the four factors that insurers can use to charge people different rates. Pre-existing health conditions are not among them.

SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
(a) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PREMIUM RATES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium rate
charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage
offered in the individual or small group market—
(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved only by—
(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual
or family;
(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with
paragraph (2);
(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary
by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section
2707(c)); and
(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not
vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved by any other factor not
described in subparagraph (A).

[TheKentuckian]

34. My understanding is the Ensign poison pill provides for "wellness screenings"

and provides that we can be charged up to 3X the base rate for not getting into healthy guidelines.

I have little doubt that in the hundred plus Republican amendments accepted combined with our own conservative land mines that folks will get hit with big increases.

[subterranean]

36. Ensign poison pill?

Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

I also have no doubt that the insurance companies will exploit every loophole they put into the law.

[soryang]

37. Appreciate that!

Found a lot useful info with that citation. My personal opinion is that spreading the risk within the particular group or plan is not enough. Rates can vary widely depending on the group or plan. Technically though, what you stated is correct within each group or plan. The reinsurance plan is meant to remedy this.

Thanks again!

[Crazy Dave]

30. I thought the law only mandated that insurance could not be denied

Charging higher premiums for the older and people with chronic illnesses would pay more according to a show I heard on NPR a couple of months ago. I also noticed (especially with my own premiums) that the cost of insurance has gone up 30% this year. They say rates will be cheaper which I doubt, but even if they go down 10% I'll still paying 20% more than I did last year.

Hey, Obama lied when he said no bill would be signed by him unless it had a public option and most of the representatives who voted for HRC never even read the bill so who knows what else we got lied to about.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

[subterranean]

32. Don't most insurance companies raise rates every year?

How much of that 30% increase can honestly be attributed to the health care law, most of which doesn't kick in until 2014? No one ever promised that insurance companies would never raise premiums again after the bill was passed. You should expect another rate increase next year too, and the year after that.

What is the basis for your claim that most of the representatives who voted for HCR never read the bill? That seems to be a prevalent myth in right-wing world. They may not have read every single word, but surely they read at least a summary of the content prepared by their staffs. Much of the bill was available to read for months before it was passed.

I do agree that Obama misled us (okay, lied) about the public option. He said repeatedly, before he changed his mind, that a public option was necessary to keep insurance companies "honest" and force them to exercise restraint in jacking up premiums. Unfortunately, it appears he was right about that.

[Crazy Dave]

46. You made the case perfectly

Of why we needed a public option versus "for profit" insurance.

[TwilightGardener]

13. If you've got the beginnings of diabetes, you can change your diet and

exercise habits even if you can't afford regular treatment. If you are found to have something that can be fixed at relatively low cost (without hospitalization or long term treatment), it may be worth it. Otherwise, I don't know.

[Duer 157099]

16. True. Good point about diabetes and probably blood pressure

I was really more concerned with cancer/mammogram screenings, because if you get a positive hit on those, it ain't no trivial thing.

I think I'd rather not know. In fact, I'm sure about it.

[dflprincess]

22. But will they pay for the test strips, meter and the follow up A1C tests

that tell you you have your diabetes under control. A1Cs are vitally important - but pretty pricey and they should be done at least twice a year.

Diabetes is relatively expensive even when the patient is doing everything right and keeping it in check.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Well, let me clarify--if you're borderline diabetic, you at least know not

to drink Mountain Dew for lunch and load up on carbs all day. That's about as far as the raw screening results can take you. Beyond that, you're talking expense.

[dflprincess]

29. If you're borderline diabetic you need to be monitored

diet and excercise work best for Type II diabetics but are not fool proof. A Type I diabetic is going to need medication as well as watching diet & exercise. At the very least, a person needs futher testing to help determine what kind of diabetes they have. One elevated fasting blood sugar test won't tell them all that much and that is about all these free screenings will over.

[uppityperson]

38. You sound like you are against people doing what they can to stay healthy, not sure you mean to

"If you're borderline diabetic you need to be monitored" unless you can't afford to be. If you find out you are, you can take steps even without further monitoring. You sound like you are saying you shouldn't be checked to find out if you are even borderline diabetic unless you are financially able to be monitored by a health care person? I hope that isn't what you mean.

If you are a borderline diabetic, you can modify your diet and exercise to, hopefully, avoid it getting worse. Even if you never get another bs check, still it can help.

[dflprincess]

39. As I said, diet and exercise can help

but without monitoring you won't know if it's working. Acting as though one lousy screening test is all it takes to determine how a person is doing is denying just how serious a disease diabetes is and ignoring that many diabetics cannot bring the disease under control without help.

A screening test may act as a wake up call but even if a person totally turns their lifestyle around and adopts a model lifestyle, they may be among the people for whom diet and excercise just isn't enough. It is not uncommon for a person who is overweight and has Type II to be able to improve their diabetes by losing weight but until they are able to do that they may need medication to control their glucose levels. As long as a person's sugar levels are not controlled they are running the risk for some very nasty and permanent side affects.

And, again, Type I diabetes does not respond well, if at all, to diet and exercise.

Diabetes is one of the chronic conditions that tends to get worse when people do not have access to health care. And that holds true whether a person has no insurance at all or has "coverage" that requires them to pay large out of pockets. Yes, they can try to improve things themselves (assuming they know what to do) but if they are unable to afford medical care the for profit insurance system we have is forcing them to take a terrible chance with their long term health.

[uppityperson]

41. And saying they should not have screening or should avoid it is....a good thing?

[dflprincess]

43. No I'm not saying anyone should avoid a screening

but I'm saying it is BS to act as though they do anything to help the problems we have with access to care. For people who can't afford follow up all these tests may do is let them know their time is limited.

People like to tout that "preventative" medicine is covered in Obama's insurance bill. But what we tend to call preventative are these screening tests that don't prevent anything, but may catch a condition when it is treatable, maybe even curable. We need to shine a light on the fact that screening with no follow up is very nearly pointless and that we continue to have a system the really does encourage people to avoid these tests and continues cost lives.

[uppityperson]

44. Thanks for clarifying. There is an increasing problem that people are getting sicker

before seeking help since they cannot afford it. We do need a system that encourages true health care, not health insurance companies.

[Vinca]

23. I used to scrape together enough money to get a mammogram

or colonoscopy and that's exactly what occurred to me. If they found anything, I couldn't afford to treat it so it's a waste of my time and money to get tested.

[Starry Messenger]

26. I think they're a scam to turn you down for ins.

My parents used to nag me to take these and got pissed off when I asked if they also came with free cancer treatments.

[Ozymanithrax]

27. It depends on whether or not people think it is good to live in ignorance... n/t

[TheManInTheMac]

28. "So they offer a free cancer screening and tell you that you have cancer, what then?"

Well, we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington. And, friends, somewhere in Washington, enshrined in some folder is a study, in black and white, of my free health screening.

(Apologies to Arlo.)

[pitohui]

33. the value is to the insurance company, so that you can never, ever get back yr health insurance

i went w.out health insurance for 15 years, believe you me, i was NEVER so stupid as to get one of these "free" screenings because i already knew what happens

a friend had a brain tumor found, he could never get insurance again

he is dead

and so on, there is no point in screening for an illness that no working individual can afford to pay to treat

no one is obligated to treat your cancer, they are only required to provide EMERGENCY care

if this changes in 2014, good, but it ain't 2014, we have a lot of fuckwits to fight with before 2014

[Motown_Johnny]

40. you get your will made, or move to Canada for health care

not much else to do if they find a serious problem


The only real benefit would be if they find something like high blood pressure or high cholesterol or something more easily dealt with.

[immoderate]

45. THAT is the plot of Catch-23

--imm

[RainDog]

47. since I no longer have health insurance

and cannot afford to pay for health care out of pocket, I just assume that, if I have a major health problem, I'll die without treatment.

it's the American way.

but the insurance cos and the pharmas got their money and that's who the govt cares about.

people who pretend that this govt is not tacitly encouraging mothers to die are liars.

I say mothers because I am one and my entire life since I had children has been formed by decisions that I made that were in the best interests of my children, if not always myself. People who pretend that the two are the same are also liars.

I've been fortunate that I have relatively good health - I do have a long-term medical problem but, again, no one cares if you can afford treatment so I just deal with it or not the best I can.

And that's why the pols in this nation can go fuck themselves.

[bemildred]

48. Word.

:thumbsup: