A friend of my wife who lives here in Moline would love to change jobs but cannot because of the American system of private health insurance. She has on-going health problems that are covered by the health insurance plan of her employer but would be considered pre-existing conditions and would not be covered by any other health insurance plan she would join. So although she is not getting along with her new boss and has other job prospects she cannot pursue them. She cannot afford to pay for her on-going out-patient treatments out-of-pocket. She is stuck in her current job.
In countries with a single payer, national health insurance system like Canada, Britain, Germany and many other countries this is not a problem. The system covers all the citizens and changing jobs has no effect on coverage. These systems are also more cost-effective and efficient than the American system of health insurance since no resources are spent by the insurance company pursuing ways to avoid paying as is often done by American health insurance companies.
So who has more freedom, an American who cannot quit a job she does not like because of health insurance concerns or a Canadian who always has health insurance no matter what job decision she makes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dave, your topic is right on target. I have a 9-year-old son Jack, who has borderline asthmatic conditions only occasionally, has been repeatedly rejected for health insurance. His "pre-existing" condition causes all sorts of red flags at insurance companies, which in turn say no insuring Jack. Fortunately the state of Illinois has the CHIPS program which is meant to extend coverage to folks who have pre-existing conditions.
I don't know, but in a national as wealthy and powerful I would think we could do just a little bit better ensuring health insurance to every American.
You are the same people that want to raise the insurance premiums on kids who have accidents. WHat is the difference?
Post a Comment