"John" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:38:49 GMT, "TOliver"
wrote:


"John" wrote ....
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:20:40 +0100, The Reid
wrote:

Following up to mrtravel

how well does an insurance based system work if you are born
sick?

It works quite well in my experience.
My first child was conceived before I had insurance, so the insurance
didn't cover my wife's (ex-wife now) medical bills, but it covered the
child's medical bills in the hospital.

I was thinking of someone with an ongoing condition, private
cover here tends to exclude known conditions when I've looked at
it.


Very true in the US.

My son is diabetic and takes daily insulin shots .He has his own
business and he could not buy health insurance.

Interestingly, were he employed by most large employers, his coverage
would
have been automatic, and federal law makes it difficult to fail to employ
and individual because of a medical vcondition which does not render them
unable to perform the job requirements.

Well, he isn't employed by a large employer. So why are you writing
this long paragraph. To try to impress us with your knowledge?

I told you he is self employed.

Additionally there are literally
hundreds of health insurance plans which would have enrolled him. Many
offer only partial coverage, leaving out coverage for his pre-existing
condition, while others have enormously high premiums.

Let me shout it out to you:

HE WANTS COVERAGE FOR HIS PRE-EXISTING DIABETIC CONDITION AND NOT AT
ENORMOUSLY HIGH PREMIUMS.

Do you understand that?

The same wish of my son is desired by millions of people in this
country who are rejected for health coverage for their pre-existing
medical condition.

One time, he was experiencing trouble with his eyes. He went to an eye
doctor who specialized in diabetic eye conditions.
Without insurance, he had to pay $400. for this visit.


Then there are literally dozens of HMOs which routinely accept diabetics,
although there are limits of coverage depending upon the origin
(childhood)
and defgree of the condition.

You are obviously not being quite frank with readers here, not "telling a
whopper", but greatly shading the truth. It does your perspective and
communicating it great disservice.

TMO


Is this being frank enough for you?

No, because in your usual attempt to avoid the truth, you claimed: "He could
not buy health insurance." No, not "cheap" insurance, but that he could not
buy insurance at all, a statement you have yourself admitted to be untrue.
Obviously, health insurance for diabetics is expensive unless thay can be
covered by an employer plan or as a dependent of an employee so covered (or
as a participant in an HMO).

Why should your son's insurance be cheap? In the plan of which I'm a
trustee, we insure dozens of diabetics (most of whom suffer from a less
severe "adult onset" version). They are automatically covered at the same
rate as any other particiapant.

I presume that his choice to be "self-employed" was not made under duress
(although admittedly, some employers might seek not to employ an individual
with his type of diabetes, law or no law).

TMO