38 votes

Rand Paul's Comment on Healthcare - SHOCKING

Listening to Sean Scamity on the radio in the car today, and he interviewed Rand Paul.

Paul made a comment that was SHOCKING -- and nobody is talking about this.

He said that he lives in Kentucky, and that there were about 30 insurance companies offering health care insurance in his state. But now because of Obamacare, there are only TWO.

But the shocking thing is, one of those companies is ONLY offering insurance WITHIN THE STATE.

This means that any person in Kentucky who buys insurance from this company, will have ZERO coverage as soon as they step foot outside of Kentucky.

Yep ... go on vacation or business or just travel across the state line, and your health care insurance WILL NOT COVER YOU.

First time I've heard of that.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You people are arguing for a third party nanny ?

Shouldn't the focus be on WHY you need a third party to cover artificially inflated medical costs?

Aren't YOU able to negotiate payment to your doctor, ya know, like 30 years ago?

We need single payer.

It is the most effective and efficient kind of healthcare system known. It works very well in Germany, France, Canada and many other countries. Not perfect, but MUCH BETTER than in the US.

In a couple years, after the lockout period in Obamacare expires, states will be free to move toward single payer if they want. It is the wisest way to go. Providers stay private, but prices and payments are highly regulated.

No, it isn't strictly libertarian. I dont believe in strict dogmas. Neither red nor blue but wisely purple is the best way in my humble opinion.

Really?

Can't believe I read a recommendation for a single payer system here at the DP.

How about let the marketplace decide? It's called freedom. What's wrong with that?

How did we ever survive as human being previous to the advent of health insurance?

Let me ask you, do you have insurance on your cell phone? Whether you do or not now, I bet you have in the past opted to not insure it. And if you never have, you can at least IMAGINE having a cell phone w/o insurance.

How would you take care and treat your non-insured cell phone? I don't think I need to explain that you would do all you can to protect your phone vs. somebody who's got full insurance and would . Same with any type of insurance. Sure, insurance I think is a great idea IF there are market forces allowing competition to bring the price of insurance down, and IF you have the obvious choice to not get any insurance.

Freedom to choose is what we SHOULD have. How many choices are there with a single payer system?

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Do you know what single payer means?

France does not have a single payer system. Neither does Germany! Canada does, yes, but my guess is that you don't know the details of any of those systems enough to argue about how they would or would not apply to the US.

I think the most "libertarian" solution would be to let *states* decide how to implement healthcare and stop doing so much at the federal level. At most the federal level can impose some guidelines so all states do something. That way each person can live where the laws suit them and different healthcare models can be adopted depending on the demographics of the region (more rural vs. more urban, denser population, larger land area, etc). But I think that boat has sailed.

Beware the single payer system

Once any system is mandatory participation (as a single payer system would be), itis ripe for corruption. The wealthy special interests (likely the pharmaceuticals) would bribe the regulators to favor their products and eliminate their competitions. Now you have no option for health care other than pay once for their inferior quality, even poisonous treatments designed to extract the maximum amount of money out of you without ever getting you well, or pay twice for health care in order to go entirely outside the system to get real health care.

Eliminate the middleman entirely from the equation (the government) and keep your freedom, health and it will be cheaper too.

http://riseforliberty.com/ For May 17 Money Bomb!

BELIEVE IT - out of system does NOT "cover" you

This Obamacare is not very different from HillaryCare. (Pre-existing conditions were not covered back then but that doesn't relate to this debate.) Clinton and Gore test ran HillaryCARE in their home states of Arkansas and Tennessee. My wife and I were just married and had our first on the way... covered by BCBS of TN. HillaryCare struck and the Doctors and Hospital systems dropped BCBS of TN when they took over TennCARE for Gore.(the TN socialized insurance) All out of state systems refused to accept BCBS of TN. We were forced to move back to Tennessee solely because of the lack of services. Only two hospitals INSIDE of TN would serve us. The Med in Memphis and a teaching hospital in Knoxville. We paid over $800 a month for our insurance because my wife had to go on COBRA when we had to relocate to Memphis and yet were treated like the filth who suck at the teat of entitlement. (a citizen of Memphis) Complete malpractice sums it up. Don't doubt your bleeding heart - ABSOLUTELY services are cut off when out of state and you pay full price if you have emergencies. The hospitals are going to serve emergencies whether you have insurance or not, but you are going to receive a bill. Our situation became very involved and resulted in financial ruin. Now after 20 years of marriage and struggle we have finally built it back in time to buy a home at the peak of the market and suffer Obamacare.

Everyone should remember ...

... Rand Paul is himself a medical doctor. He lives in Kentucky, and he has more than a passing interest in the laws ... especially when it comes to health insurance.

I can only say that I am reporting what he said. HE is the one who brought this up and made a point about it, like in, "It has gotten so bad, that in my home state of Kentucky, where there used to be 30 health insurance companies, there are only two ... and ONE of those ... is no longer covering for anything outside of Kentucky. So if I am in Washington, DC and I get a heart attack, I won't be covered."

To me, this means this ONE insurance company (he made a point it was one of the two, so this is not industry-wide -- yet) will NOT COVER ANYTHING occurring outside of Kentucky.

THAT is why it was shocking. I have never heard of this. And he brought it up as an example of how outrageous things are getting.

Carry on.

I find that hard to believe

Insurance, like the old HMO models (which are making a comeback) or the EPO networks restrict individuals from seeking care outside of their network, which could be restricted to a state or region within a state. HOWEVER, I have not seen or heard of an insurance company not covering an emergency outside of their network. SO, if you are on vacation in Tenesse and you fall down a flight of stairs breaking your arm and leg this would be an emeregency in which the local hospital in Tenesse would be reimbursed - paid from your insurance as if it were "in network". Maybe Kentucky has something special as a state mandate but that wouldn't be likely. I think it's more that the plan offered has a restricted network within the state. {one reason is that a restrictive network allows for a more cost friendly plan as you are able to direct members/patients to hospitals/docs that you have good contracts with}. So, to get a procedure done in another state is probably not covered (because it would be out of network) but if you had a true emergency they are usually covered as "in network". The insurer does not penalize the person because they are out of network when their arm is hanging off. But, I could be wrong, insurance doesn't often make a lot of logical sense at times.

you are correct. emergencies

you are correct. emergencies would be covered. what would not be covered would be routine treatment. i.e. you get a cold and go to a family practitioner out of state, you would be responsible for the cost of the visit.

but tragic occurencies, such as emergency room visits, would and are covered by law.

Better check your policy.

Most doctors that work in emergency rooms here in California have independent contracts. So while the emergency room charge is covered, we get a separate bill from the doctor. If that doctor is not in your network, you are stuck trying to negotiate the fee.

There is an ongoing lawsuit

against our governor in KY because he illegally implemented Obamacare without the approval of the state legislature. There is little to no information about this online so I'm not sure what the status is.

Ha!

This is the first you have heard? Almost every state has a monopoly stronghold on how insurance is issued. Its rarely allowed out of state. I heard AL was the worse. Two companies for the entire state and one covers almost everybody.

This is a point. If Congress did its fkn job this wouldn't be an issue. States should not make laws restricting the free market in this area. It literally gave the states the power to create monopoly. Its one thing the Fed could do to lower insurance costs.

What a retarded system we have.. getting dumber by the day. Obamacare is going to be a disaster to our economy.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

In most cases emergency services are still covered.

.

Read your Member Handbook. Most people dont.

egapele's picture

Same as my coverage with Blue Cross

you are out of network.

Not a shock for us who have been PAYING for health insurance.

For the others who have not, welcome to reality.

Sniffles won't count as a reason for a trip to the doctor anymore and the ensuing lame round of antibiotics won't either as long as they will have to pay.

there is a market reaction that might benefit us though

... I hate ObamaCare as much as I hated HillaryCare but we are seeing innovation this time.

Doctors and private care networks are dropping all insurance and going to cash. The paperwork and regulated fees are destroying their business unless they conform to the central planners idea of COSTCO style medical care.

With this pressure innovation is just starting. Telephone appointments with Doctors in Texas allow Doctors to call in meds after interviewing the patient or parent. Surgery clinics in Oklahoma are able to offer all-inclusive proceedure prices that are approaching cost of smartphone plans, big screen tvs, and a quality set of rims. Prices are dropping as doctors and surgeons are advertizing rates. Payment agreements are replacing insurance and these clinics are profiting more with bills that are fractions of total costs when insurance is "covering" it.

Dropping all insurance

I have been in practice for over 30 years and am considering which type of alternative financial system to adopt. I no longer want any part of the insurance system. It has intruded so severely into my decision making process that I cannot deliver quality health care and follow the requirements and restraints of that system. Any suggestions?

http://riseforliberty.com/ For May 17 Money Bomb!

Haha They have to pass it to

Haha

They have to pass it to see what's in it.

And a giant turd is what's in it.

May I add an intransitive verb?



"And a giant STEAMING turd is what's in it."

Exercise Liberty...and pinch your nose.


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

you sir

do not know the difference between a transitive verb and an adjective.