Down and Out in San Diego
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 06-03-2009 - 8:43pm |
Poor Maggie, America is such a cruel and inhospitable place.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-lazarus27-2009may27,0,819761.column?track=rss
Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her
David Lazarus
May 27, 2009
San Marcos resident Maggie Yount wasn't surprised when the letter from insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross arrived the other day. Yet she couldn't help but be frustrated.
"Some medical conditions, either alone or in combination with the cost of medication, present uncertain medical underwriting risks," Anthem informed her. "In view of these risks, we find we are unable to offer you enrollment at this time."
In other words, no health coverage for you.
Yount, 24, finds herself in that cloudy area in which a "preexisting condition" makes her too great a risk in the eyes of money-minded insurance companies. And so she's being excluded from the system.
"It looks like I'll just have to be very, very careful about everything," Yount told me. "But what kind of way is that to live your life?"
If that were all there was to it, her story would still be worth telling as the Obama administration embarks on an ambitious effort to reform the woefully dysfunctional U.S. healthcare system.
But Yount's tale runs even deeper.
In November 2007, she was rushed to the emergency room after a drunk driver crashed into her car on a Nova Scotia highway.
Yount awoke from a coma four days later. She had suffered a brain injury in the head-on collision. Thirteen bones were broken, from her leg to her cheek. The other driver was killed.
Yount, a Canadian citizen, spent three months in a Halifax hospital, receiving treatment and rehab that must have cost a small fortune.
"I have no idea how much it cost," she said. "It's not something I've ever needed to know."
So who paid the bill?
"The government of Canada."
The United States is the only industrialized democracy that doesn't have a government-run insurance system. Under such systems, universal coverage is provided through tax revenue. There are no premiums, co-pays or deductibles.
It's not a perfect system -- people often end up waiting for nonessential treatment. But it won't leave you destitute if things go bad. Basically, you're covered. For everything.
In Yount's case, that ended when she moved to San Marcos in northern San Diego County a year ago to be with her fiance. They were married last July.
She then tried to obtain health coverage under the U.S. system. Her American husband works as a software engineer on a contract basis and doesn't have employer-provided coverage.
Before applying to Anthem, Yount applied for an individual policy offered by Aetna Inc. She received a letter a couple of months ago informing her that her application had been rejected.
The letter noted that Yount's medical record includes "a history of traumatic brain injury with multiple fractures treated with hospitalization." It concluded that "this condition exceeds the allowable limits provided by our underwriting guidelines."
That's a fancy way of saying there's a pretty good chance Yount will require medical care of one sort or another in the future. This would be bad for Aetna's business.
"If anybody from Aetna had actually spoken to me, they'd see I'm not mentally challenged because of the brain injury," Yount said. "I still have some issues related to it, such as short-term memory loss, but I no longer have the need for acute medical care."
As for all those broken bones: "They've healed," Yount said. "That's over. What, are they going to deny people coverage because they once had a broken arm?"
Anjanette Coplin, an Aetna spokeswoman, was unable to discuss Yount's case. But she said the company considers a variety of factors before rejecting an applicant for coverage. These can include a person's overall condition, medical history and prospects for ongoing treatment.
"We feel that our underwriting guidelines give the greatest number of consumers the opportunity to purchase affordable, quality health insurance products," Coplin said.
Yount's response: Companies like Aetna and Anthem are denying coverage based solely on history rather than a reasonable expectation of what could happen down the road.
"I want insurance for what could happen in the future -- just in case," she said. "That's what insurance is for. But I can't get it."
I don't blame Aetna or Anthem. If you offer health insurance as a for-profit business, it goes without saying that you'll do everything you can to avoid making payouts. That means you'll shun anyone with even a whiff of medical trouble.
But this is no way to run an insurance system, let alone to protect people from financial ruin due to catastrophic events such as being sent to the hospital by a drunk driver.
The Obama administration has already rejected the idea of a single-payer system similar to Canada's -- a mistake, in my opinion. Instead, it wants a smaller public program that would compete with private insurers and keep costs down.
Private insurers, not surprisingly, are lobbying aggressively to kill off that idea. They'd rather have a national mandate that would require all Americans to buy their product.
In return, they say, they'd stop sending rejection letters to people like Yount with preexisting conditions. But policyholders would still be subject to the companies' various terms and conditions.
Maybe one compromise would be to let private insurers handle the small stuff and to have a public program that could tackle the catastrophic stuff.
I asked Yount what would have happened if she'd gotten into her accident in Southern California instead of Nova Scotia.
"I can't say whether my care would have been better or worse," she replied. "But I know this: I'd be bankrupt now."
"I'm not a religious person," Yount added. "But I thank God my accident happened where it did."

Pages
If you truly believe in freedom of choice, it would be obvious to you that putting fluoride in my water supply will not only force me to cook with fluoride but bathe and shower with it too. So your freedom to choose fluoride has encroached into my body. That's not freedom at all.
If we dared recommend that vitamins be put in the water, people have been conditioned to say "ooohhhh nooooo, too much of a good thing is bad."
Well the same thing is true for fluoride. Yet governments spend mult-millions of dollars putting fluoride chemicals into public water supplies.
Your fluoridation support is simply a belief. Just as we can't prove there is a God, you can't prove fluoridation is safe and effective.
JFK said, "Some people have the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." I would amend that to read "without the discomfort of research."
I DID my research and found that the anti-fluoride case is a concoction of over-emphasis on some facts, omission of others, deliberate disinformation, and a smidgen of science which indicates a sensitivity by those with certain health conditions coupled with an elevated level of fluoride in the water due to poor monitoring. Moreover, the phobia/mania of fluoride by certain groups and individuals is nothing new and has a long, rich history of nuttiness.
<> Who's arguing with you about that? Problem is, the anti-fluoride camp keeps ignoring the crucial factor of "good" level. Some fluoride is beneficial. Too high a level can be toxic. Duh. True of many more elements than just fluoride!
Our nation and political system is democratic in nature. It's based on the notion of "majority rule and minority right". Majority rule has resulted in a system which supplements water with fluoride in most supplies provided by a municipal entity. Minority rule means that you can choose move to a place where your water supply is well-based. I did that 15 years ago. Now I live in a place where the water is once again supplied by a municipality. I have a water softener and filtration on both cooking water (UV) and refrigerator drinking water (charcoal, at a guess).
But you're in the minority, at least at present. The majority is comfortable with fluoride supplementation of our water supply. And the anti-fluoride crew will probably stay minority if the best that can be mustered is sensationalist statements, scare tactics, flimsy logic and worse science. Beliefs are not the basis of my position. Facts are. And you have not been able to muster facts which prove that fluoride supplements in water, for most people of the United States, is the bête noire you've attempted to portray it as.
Right now, I find the TSA song-and-dance much more invasive and pointless than fluoride supplementation. Oh that TSA would quit making commercial airline travelers schlep their luggage to x-ray machines, stand in worm-intestine queues in order to remove their shoes, parade naked (virtually) and confiscate any liquid/lotion/paste of more than 3 oz. of fluid in our carry-ons. After all, just as we can't prove there is a God, you can't prove TSA measures are safe and effective (to paraphrase).
Jabberwocka
You did not do research because you clearly do not know what you are talking about
You said "Some fluoride is beneficial."
Please tell me how much fluoride is beneficial to me? And do not answer with the concentration in public water supplies. How many milligrams do I need daily to reduce tooth decay?
You said, "Our nation and political system is democratic in nature. It's based on the notion of "majority rule and minority right"."
If that were true, blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.
You said, "I have a water softener and filtration on both cooking water (UV) and refrigerator drinking water (charcoal, at a guess)."
I guess you don't know that you inhale more toxins from shower water than you would from drinking it.
You said, "But you're in the minority,"
Actually, 75% of fluoridation referendums fail. So organized dentistry takes their PAC money and politics to state legislators coercing them to fluoridate while keeping it secret from the public. Read "The Fluoride Victory," in the Journal of the California Dental Association (around 1995) when the state quietly passed their state-wide fluoridation mandate using "stealth" as they describe it. As a result, millions of dollars are wasted on fluoridation in California which is going bankgrupt but which can't touch the fluoridation money. Thanks dentists!) San Diego legislators did not want to pass the fluoridation law last year; but if they didn't they would heavily be fined by the state.
"Clearly do not know what you are talking about?" Odd. Could have sworn I posted links from reputable sources. Oh, wait. I get it. Didn't agree with you or come to the same conclusions.
"If you have water fluoride levels under 0.6 ppm, your child's dentist or pediatrician should evaluate whether your child can benefit from daily fluoride supplements. Their recommendation will depend on your child's risk of developing tooth decay and as well as exposure to other sources of fluoride (e.g., drinking water at school or daycare, toothpaste). If the natural fluoride level of your well or community drinking water is greater than 2 ppm, you should consider an alternate source of drinking water for any child 8 years and younger."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs.htm
I was a political science major. Here's more on the concept of "majority rule, minority right".
<<(The following one-pager is taken from the U.S. Department of State publication, Principles of Democracy.)
On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.
• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.
• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.
• Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.
• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.
• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.
• There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved – only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.>>
http://tinyurl.com/5jbf4d
When DH and I bought this house, the filters were part of the deal. Toxins in the water (like arsenic) occur naturally here in the Southwest but am not going hunker down in a figurative concrete bunker, stressing unduly.
Since we live in a democracy, you have the right to speak your mind, and seek change. Our laws are promulgated by majority-elected representatives. If you feel the laws need changing, you can choose to express your opinion to your federal, state, and local representatives. If they prove balky, you can work in the campaign of candidates who support your stance. But sticking to facts and reason will take the anti-fluoride group much farther than fear-mongering, sensationalism, and obvious attempts to discredit anything which or denigrate anyone who does not support the already chosen conclusion. We went to a bloody, costly, and needless war under political hacks who pulled that kind of stunt.
And with that, I am quite likely to write no more on the issue of fluoridation because the salient facts have already been put forth.
Edited to re-word sentences for greater clarity.Edited 6/20/2009 6:05 pm ET by jabberwocka
Jabberwocka
I knew you couldn't do it - tell me how much fluoride I should have each day. You posted the following which tells me the concentration in the water. I already asked my dentist. He has no clue how much fluoride I ate. We know how much vitamins and minerals we need every day - it's posted on so many food containers - daily requirement vs. how much in the box, bottle, can, etc. But nothing about fluoride - odd isn't it.
You said: "If you have water fluoride levels under 0.6 ppm, your child's dentist or pediatrician should evaluate whether your child can benefit from daily fluoride supplements. Their recommendation will depend on your child's risk of developing tooth decay and as well as exposure to other sources of fluoride (e.g., drinking water at school or daycare, toothpaste). If the natural fluoride level of your well or community drinking water is greater than 2 ppm, you should consider an alternate source of drinking water for any child 8 years and younger."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs.htm
Please tell me how much fluoride you consumed yesterday. Here's a link to average fluoride levels in some foods: www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf
You can estimate how much you absorb in baths, inhale from showers or consume in your own cooked foods.
Then add the amount of fluoride you ingest from fluoridated toothpaste (some will always get absorbed into your bloodstream and involuntarily swallowed.)
Oh yeah, if you are any meds that contain fluoride, that would be listed here: http://www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/index_drugs.html
After you calculate your daily fluoride dose, ask your dentist how much you ate. See if he or she knows.
By the way, some older people who ingest too much fluoride are known to develop arthritic-like symptoms.
For example
A 52-year-old American man's arthritic-like joint pain and immobility went away after he stopped brushing his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, according to a
study in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research(1).
There's no scientific dispute that large fluoride doses cause crippling skeletal fluorosis over time. (See. http://www.nalgonda.org/fluorosis/victims.htm )
But, "less well-known causes of chronic fluoride toxicity include fluoride supplements, certain teas and wine and some toothpastes," report researchers Kurland, et al.(1)
Skeletal fluorosis often results in abnormal bone hardening and thickening (osteosclerosis) with painful and impaired neck and spine mobility, spine curvature, and/or painful lower extremities ultimately causing crippling and incapacitation, report the researchers.
"Fluoride at any level accumulates in the body," says Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "So even water fluoridation will cause arthritic-like symptoms in susceptible
individuals which is compounded by U.S. physicians'and dentists' lack of training to diagnose fluoride toxicity."
See http://tinyurl.com/Susheela (A doctor from India explains why US physicians fail to properly diagnose skeletal fluorosis )
In this case, the only obvious fluoride exposure was toothpaste. The patient drank no fluoridated water, tea or wine; had no occupational fluoride exposure; did not chew tobacco, inhale snuff, cook with Teflon pots, use fluoridated mouthwash or get fluoride treatments at
twice-yearly dentist visits. But he brushed before and after all meals (minimum 6 times daily) with fluoridated toothpaste.
Fluoride was elevated in his serum, urine and iliac crest (bone), the researchers report.
Within 8 months of eliminating all obvious fluoride sources, the patient's urinary and blood fluoride levels dropped and bone function markers showed clear cut improvement, the researchers report.
"By approximately two years after diagnosis and apparent elimination of excess fluoride exposure, the patient had complete resolution of his neck immobility and no longer required analgesics," the researchers write.
Roos, et al. documents a woman whose painful swollen fingers healed after she ceased eating fluoridated toothpaste.(2)
Whyte, et al. report a woman's fluoride-caused debilitating joint pains disappeared when her two-gallon-a-day iced tea habit stopped.(3)
Eichmiller, et al. report a patient's leg and joint pains from a dentist-prescribed high-concentration fluoride product.(4)
"We know US schoolchildren are fluoride-overdosed(5). What's it doing to their bones?" asks Beeber.
Arthritis is linked to water fluoride in a Turkish study.(6)
More about skeletal fluorosis:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/s-fluorosis.htm
and arthritis
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fluorosis/arthritis/
References:
1) Recovery From Skeletal Fluorosis (An Enigmatic, American Case).
Journal of Bone Mineral Research. October 2, 2006, by Kurland, et a.
(2) Osteofluorosis caused by excess use of toothpaste, Presse Med,
34:1518-20, by Roos et al November 2005
(3) Environ Health Perspect. 2005 August; 113(8): "Food Safety: A
Tea-Time Mystery," by Michael Szpir
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1280381
(4) Journal of the American Dental Association, "Controlling the
fluoride dosage in a patient with compromised salivary function,"
Frederick C. Eichmiller, D.D.S.; Naomi Eidelman, Ph.D.; Clifton M.
Carey, PhD., Vol. 136, page 67 -70, January 2005
http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/136/1/67
(5)
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of
Communication, 8/25/05
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050825.htm
(6)http://www.orgsites.com/ny/newyorkstatecoalitionopposedtofluoridation...
"Well, we sure as heck can't depend on the Insurance Companies to take care of us!"
I'm a big believer in people being self-reliant as best as they are able. As I don't have several million dollars available per family member to pay for medical care I insure for it. Wish I had the several million, sadly I don't.
"Unfortunately we aren't all independently wealthy as some."
You are correct.
Pages