Pre-Existing Conditions Provision in House Health Plan Divides GOP

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea

How could you have a single claim that was covered on one day and not covered on the next? Something is missing in your story.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, so forgive me if I'm not answering your question... but in my case, an HA-MRSA (HA = hospital acquired) is introduced directly into the blood system and cannot be cured. The symptoms can be treated, such as sepsis, but not eliminated. I have managed to get through a few bouts of sepsis, only for it to infect my bone marrow. I no longer have the insurance I had at the time (thanks Obamacare), and the insurance I had then does not cover any additional health issues caused by this very same MRSA. But I sure still have the problem which is now a "pre-existing condition" to insurance companies. Any other insurance policy would cover a claim from start to finish... but not a health claim for an ongoing condition.

These HA-MRSAs (and other antibiotic resistant infections, like c. difficile) are a big problem, and no one knows exactly how big, in part because it isn't always known, but also in large part because it's so easy to hide. The testing for these antibiotic resistant strains are expensive and take a while. Obviously, when someone is dying from sepsis, these patients have to be treated immediately. They can't wait for the tests to be done. Often times, the testing is not done at all. Too often, the patient dies and the cause of death is listed as the symptom -- for example, lung infection rather then the MRSA that caused the lung infection. And because these HA-MRSAs can be directly traced back to and attributed to the hospital/doctor/healthcare providers, it's obvious who would want to obscure the origins of the infection and why.

Feds Cover up Hospital Infections

It’s Not the Crime it’s the Cover-Up: A MRSA lawsuit against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers illustrates the principle

Again, I apologize if I missed the point of your question and completely missed the mark.

a reply to: carewemust


Is true, I see the interview and he talking about it, but what he doesn't say is that he can pay for the care of his child.

In the US we have mercy hospitals that takes care of the needs of children born with needs.

No child is left to die in our nation just because the parents can not afford care.

He can uses his child as an example of how wealthy people doesn't have to worry about care, but he is playing politics trying to insinuate that the rest of the children born with health problems and poor will die.

That is not true.