Health Plans Of GOP Cancer Survivors Won’t Cover Cancer Survivors Like Themselves
Health Plans Of GOP Cancer Survivors Won’t Cover Cancer Survivors Like Themselves
Last month, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani began running radio ads in which he used his experience as a survivor of prostate cancer to bash government provided universal health care plans. Using misleading statistics, Giuliani claimed that if he had gotten the disease in a country with government-based health care, “chances of surviving” would have been much slimmer:
I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States: 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: only 44 percent under socialized medicine.
Giuliani says he prefers a “free market” approach that uses tax incentives to encourage Americans to enroll in private health plans. But, as the Los Angeles Times reports today, Giuliani’s plan would be unlikely to cover cancer survivors such as himself:
But under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors such as themselves could not be sure of getting coverage — especially if they were not already covered by a government or job-related plan and had to seek insurance as individuals.
“Unless it’s in a state that has very strong consumer protections, they would likely be denied coverage,” said economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, who has reviewed the candidates’ proposals. “People with preexisting conditions would not be able to get coverage or would not be able to afford it.”
Along with Giuliani, the plans of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), who also are both survivors of cancer, would likely exclude Americans such as themselves.
According to experts who spoke to the LA Times, it will take 5-10 years for insurance companies to consider providing coverage to cancer survivors. For example, a prostate cancer survivor like Giuliani “could be covered after five years of being cancer-free, at a 40% higher premium” — five years that is, if they had a “less severe form of the disease.”
Though each of the candidate’s campaigns say they are considering options for closing the gaps in their plans, tax credits and subsidies are unlikely to “cut it.” “If” someone has “a history of severe medical problems,” says Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Giving them $5,000 doesn’t really help them to afford insurance.”
Marcy Wheeler has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
59 Responses to “Health Plans Of GOP Cancer Survivors Won’t Cover Cancer Survivors Like Themselves”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
But under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors such as themselves could not be sure of getting coverage
Guiliani’s point wasn’t about future care after beating cancer, it was about beating the actual cancer. So in this specific example pre-existing conditions are a non-issue. (unless it’s someone without health care, trying to get health care due to being diagnosed with cancer)
Current pre-existing screening does need to be completely re-vamped, but does not apply in this example.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pmSquishy face,
Once you have had cancer, there is always the concern and fear of it relapsing. It could at anytime. The word “cure” is a bit misleading. Who would cover Rudy if his cancer returned?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pmHis stat was correct BTW. You are in fact much more likely to die from prostate cancer in the countries that have universal medicine. You see, we pay more because we get much better medicine combined with more medical check-ups. How anyone could be for a system that more people die in is beyond me.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pmWith these three, it’s almost like they removed the man and left the tumor.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pmSo Rudee’s point ignores cancer survivors? You are only allowed to get cancer once.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pmThank God? Sorry, for the off topic, but Christians go to their Lord’s land when they die, right? HOw dying is bad, then?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:48 pmComment by Roger_Roger
Utah is not a country.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:48 pmYou have to purchase compassion here in the US.
I’m sure a govt. funded health care system would suck, because there is no profit in it for anyone.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pmYes — Giuliani was talking about dealing with an initial appearance of cancer, which has nothing to do with the pre-existing conditions problem when getting insurance. It’s another apples and oranges comparison.
However, the point about pre-existing conditions does need to be addressed, and it would be nice if Giuliani could say, “Here in the United States, a cancer survivor like myself can get health insurance at affordable rates.” Instead, he’s advocating more free market in this area, which will worsen the problem, not make it better. Other politicians may recognize the problem, and attempt to fix it with assorted bandaids — such as tax incentives so they can attempt to buy health insurance that nobody will give them.
The health insurance system in this country is broken to the point where bandaids will no longer fix it. Rates are still skyrocketing out of control. Gaps and cracks are getting bigger and more numerous, and more and more people are falling through them. It’s time to kick the profiteers out of the business and set up a universal health care system.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pmInteresting most of these pukes have had cancer.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pmHow anyone could be for a system that more people die in is beyond me.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 20, 2007
Well, see what happens Roger is the system overprices its services and then people cant afford healthcare. Thats why we have 47 million people in America today without it,,,which makes you for a system that more people die in.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pmRoger Roger, you are a completely uninformed idiot. To begin with, Giuliani’s statistic is made up and has been completely debunked. Furthermore, his comparison is to the only country in the developed world that might possibly have worse health care than the U.S., which isn’t surprising, since Great Britain pays 60% less than the U.S. on health care. If you would do a little homework you would learn that repeated public health science studies have shown that the U.S. scores at or near the bottom by nearly every quantitative measure of health care outcomes compared to other developed nations, despite paying nearly double what is typically spent under single-payer systems. So in a nutshell we pay much more and get much less. The really galling thing is that I have repeatedly explained this to you in the past, but you are simply too stupid to grasp the facts.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI’m sure a govt. funded health care system would suck, because there is no profit in it for anyone.
Comment by ForTruth — November 20, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
————————
No kidding.
And another thing…why don’t we see the rightards shouting from the rooftops that Medicare needs to be eliminated IMMEDIATELY. Despite it’s proven success, shouldn’t people on the right be fighting against this obvious form of socialism?
November 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pmHis stat was correct BTW. You are in fact much more likely to die from prostate cancer in the countries that have universal medicine.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 20, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
His stat was debunked BTW.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/ archive/ 2007/ 10/ 30/ 438127.aspx
Try to keep up.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pmAnd when every nickel and dime you earn are going to just survive, where does this “Magical” money for private health insurance accounts come from?
How they were underpriviledged anyway, so they can just go die in the woods or something.
Repukian Fascist Suck A$$
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
November 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pmRoger_Roger: No, idiot. His stats were wrong. Guiliani was citing from a conservative group that used statistics from a seven year old study. The author of the study has made it clear that the statistics were (1) out of date and (2) COULD NOT BE USED TO DERIVE THE STATISTICAL CONCLUSION CITED BY Guiliani. Go get a clue. You are the usual moron that can only listen to what your masters tell you.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pmThe statistic that Giuliani cites, 44% chance of surviving five years, cannot be deduced from the information provided in the original research cited by the right wing blog that provided Giuliani with this false information, according to the original authors of the research. The actual long term survival rate is something like 79%, very near to the rate here in the U.S., and this is in a country that spends 60% less than the U.S., and is widely regarded as having much worse health care than typical European single-payer health systems in countries such as France and Germany, which overall provide much better health care than we get here in the U.S.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pmForTruth
Once you have had cancer, there is always the concern and fear of it relapsing. It could at anytime. The word “cure†is a bit misleading. Who would cover Rudy if his cancer returned?
Yes, I’m aware of the risk for cancer survivors of relapsing. But if they had healthcare while being treated for the cancer, then they should still have the same healthcare unless they had to switch healthcare providers due to a job or benefits change.
and on an anecdotal note:
November 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pmit will take 5-10 years for insurance companies to consider providing coverage to cancer survivors.
I have a friend who is a cancer survivor. When he switched from his parents insurance to his own insurance (through work) roughly a year after being cured and he had no issues getting covered.
The mind numbing stupidity of the koolaid drinkers like RR is just too much to take sometimes. If Fox News or World Net Daily says the sun rises in the West, the idiots say the sun rises in the West.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pm#11 Actually, our system keeps more alive. Just because you don’t have health care doesn’t mean the average’s aren’t the same. While more people may have healthc are in England, it doesn’t mean more live.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:03 pmOn the Morning Shows over the weekend, John Edwards threatened to take away the health insurance of the Congress until a plan was approved.
I cheered in my PJ’s.
I wonder how these “Pre-Existing” cases get health insurance…
I can’t.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pmI’m damned lucky my company has great insurance. My cancerous lung tumor was removed, and my six month checkup was green lighted.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pmHowever, if I were to change companies, I would not be eligible for their health insurance because of my “pre-existing condition”.
#11 Actually, our system keeps more alive. Just because you don’t have health care doesn’t mean the average’s aren’t the same. While more people may have healthc are in England, it doesn’t mean more live.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 20, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Is that nonsensical just to me?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pmoff topic but good: here’s the link to Gonzo’s “first botched speech” at a public University!! He bombed, big time! I don’t think he’ll be doing future speeches at our universities. He’s a total disgrace and people were arrested for protesting up on stage during his talk.
It goes without saying that he refused to answer the questions posed by the audience. I’m surprised he didn’t say “I can’t recall”. Instead, he just shafted the questioners right in their faces.
This guy is more of a moron than anyone could have anticipated. But he got his “just desserts” and will continue to be reviled, rebuked, and repudiated by the people who know scum when they see it.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pmSo, if a soldier gets wounded while fighting for his/her country he has to return the signing bonus?????? WTF
November 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pmsorry: here’s the link:http://www.alligator.org/articles/2007/11/20/news/campus/gonzales.txt#blogcomments
Check out their blog comments as well. Jake D, our piss-soaked troll, is there making a total blathering fool of himself but I see that a few of the posters know all about him. His reputation on the blogs preceeds him. He’s a total joke.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pmhttp://www.alligator.org/ articles/ 2007/ 11/ 20/ news/ campus/ gonzeles.txt#blogcomments
Trying this again. It’s well worth a good laugh.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:15 pmPshaw! The link isn’t working. Let me try again. Please bear with me on this. It’ll be well worth the wait.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:16 pm#11 Actually, our system keeps more alive. Just because you don’t have health care doesn’t mean the average’s aren’t the same. While more people may have healthc are in England, it doesn’t mean more live.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. You could find any result using any method and that doesn’t mean it is true. Take any set of numbers, move them around, and voila! You find the number you need to make your arguement.
The only reason you support our expensive and exclusionary health care system is because someone on Fox news said so. That is your entire reason.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pmGonzo’s Debut in Gainesville! http://www.alligator.org/
Hope this works! (fingers crossed)
November 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pmYes, I’m aware of the risk for cancer survivors of relapsing. But if they had healthcare while being treated for the cancer, then they should still have the same healthcare unless they had to switch healthcare providers due to a job or benefits change.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 20, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
It’s that “due to a job or benefits change” that’s the sticking point. Benefits change with increasing frequency as employers scramble to provide insurance for their employees despite skyrocketing costs — as a result, plans get leaner. Furthermore, layoffs and downsizing are still all too common — having a job is never a guarantee that you’ll have it until retirement.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pmHow many people lacking insurance have an extra $500 a month sitting around to buy insurance on their own, even if they get a “tax cut” for it at the end of the year? And if the healthcare systems in all those democratic countries like Canada, France, and the UK are so awful, why don’t the people there vote to get rid of them?
November 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pmSo Squishy,
As long as a person never changes their health insurance they are ok. Sounds real practical nowadays.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pmComment by Roger_Roger — November 20, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Is that nonsensical just to me?
Comment by Nature Rules — November 20, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
It is just plain nonsensical. RR is simply pulling garbage out of thin air. Or maybe out of World Net Daily.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:27 pmI’m damned lucky my company has great insurance. My cancerous lung tumor was removed, and my six month checkup was green lighted.
However, if I were to change companies, I would not be eligible for their health insurance because of my “pre-existing conditionâ€.
Comment by RUCerious — November 20, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
———
Actually you would. Under, HIPAA as long as you have 12-18 months of creditable coverage (I forget which), you next employer sponsored insurer cannot deny ANY condition as pre-existing.
The ‘P’ stands for “portability”. =D
-Your friendly neighborhood HealthInsuranceGuy
November 20th, 2007 at 4:28 pmActually, our system keeps more alive. Just because you don’t have health care doesn’t mean the average’s aren’t the same. While more people may have healthc are in England, it doesn’t mean more live.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 20, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Is that nonsensical just to me?
Comment by Nature Rules — November 20, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
No, it’s not just you. Roger 2 is just making the point that England’s health care system isn’t providing them with a lower death rate than the U.S. In fact, the death rate in the United States matches the death rate in England — it’s 100% both places (everybody dies eventually). At least I THINK this is the point he’s trying to make — his post isn’t really all that coherent.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pmForTruth
As long as a person never changes their health insurance they are ok. Sounds real practical nowadays.
Right, or doesn’t get cancer. Or any other condition that gets to count as a pre-existing condition. Or wants to cover their spouse and children with out breaking the bank. Or have an insurance provider that decides that the ‘reasonable’ rate that should be charged is significantly less than the actual rate charged by a medical provider, allowing you, the person with their insurance to cover the difference.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pmSo Squishy,
As long as a person never changes their health insurance they are ok. Sounds real practical nowadays.
Comment by ForTruth — November 20, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm——
See my post @ 35. You CAN change jobs/Health Insurance with no problems.
However, if you change companies as an individual then you are screwed.
Well, HE doesn’t have to worry about it - he’s made enough loot off 9/11 to pay for any medical procedure he’ll ever need…
All that and Judith’s Louis Vuitton, too!!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm#11 Actually, our system keeps more alive. Just because you don’t have health care doesn’t mean the average’s aren’t the same. While more people may have healthc are in England, it doesn’t mean more live.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 20, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
If that were true, we’d have the greatest longevity - we don’t! Yet here you are whining about a fact, that isn’t even true! If you took two minutes of time to fact check, you’d see what a moron you are!
The UK has a greater life expectancy for both men and women than the US does - moron! And they spend MUCH LESS for health care than we do!!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:34 pmI swear, sometimes I wonder if Bushbots like Roger_Roger simply pull their string - and voila! Out comes one of 12 completely different Republican Talking Points!
Pull your string again, Roger - let’s see what comes out *this* time!
November 20th, 2007 at 4:37 pmThey may not be able to deny coverage due to preexisting condition, but there is a “waiting period” of around a year before they will cover it. So if your cancer flares up in that waiting period, well, sell the house I spose.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pmWhile they are at it, since the Fire department and the Police Department don’t make any profit, we should privatize them as well. And then pay them insurance fees… And then they can deny a rescue because of a pre-existing “fire hazard” in your area.
Maybe one can have the best of both worlds - private health care, with government provided insurance, paid for by taxes. The government provided insurace cannot randomly deny payment or claim pre-existing conditions.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pmI would like to know:
November 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pmWho do these congress people think they are voting in for their self a health care system, where as We the People can not have?
Our tax dollars go towards their health care, why can it not towards ALL Americans?
How many wealthy politicians who have government-paid health care for themselves and their families are going to tell us we don’t need government-paid health care before this campaign is over?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm#2 by For Truth
Once you have had cancer, there is always the concern and fear of it relapsing. It could at anytime. The word “cure†is a bit misleading. Who would cover Rudy if his cancer returned?
I’d say it is even worse. Since Rudy has had a cancer where one can’t prove that it has been totally eradicated AND one has to wonder if the chemo agents used have affected his chance of contracting certain diseases:
Unless he works for a large institution with a group coverage policy (like the govt), he would now be refused for insurance coverage. A private insurance company would be crazy at insuring him at any sort of reasonable cost.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pmOh, should have added to the above comment (seeing the discussion of Squeegebo and Missmolly):
If Giuliani (as a cancer survivor) were under a private insurance policy or insurance for a small company, you’d better believe that there would be considerable pressure to get him off the books such as getting him fired.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:10 pmWhy is it We the People, the people that pay taxes to run Congress, have to settle for the insurance industry, for our health insurance, that can pick and choose their clients and deny coverage at their whim? Why is it Congress can vote in, only for them self, a decent health care package we pay for, while 18,000 people from We the People DIE each year?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pmYour friendly neighborhood HealthInsuranceGuy
Comment by deebaser — November 20, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Thanks for the info, does that also cover the military if I were crazy enough to try to enlist?
November 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pmThe ‘P’ stands for “portabilityâ€. =D
And here all this time I thought it meant Porta Potty!
November 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pmWhat rabbit_rabbit doesn’t seem to comprehend is that in countries with universal health care available, a person is far more likely to be diagnosed with cancer (and, hence, begin treatment for it) far earlier than someone in the US. MOST people in this country don’t go to the doctors UNTIL they become seriously ill and, by that time, the illness has grown into a more advanced stage requiring more serious (and more expensive) treatment. In the case of cancer (of all varieties), routine exams don’t fall into the category of “reason to go to the doctor”, especially when you can’t afford the cost of the office visit and the various tests for the prospect of a “clean bill of health”. That “clean bill” can set you back a couple of hundreds dollars without insurance, and even WITH insurance, the insurance provider may find ways of not paying for the costs; for example, the provider may determine that one of the tests isn’t *really* “routine” enough under the insurance provider’s coverage, or that particular test may not be covered under YOUR particular policy (some policies treat hormone treatments for women dealing with menopause or men with low testosterone as routine, even necessary; other policies, however, treat those same treatments as unnecessary or “experimental” even when your physician has prescribed them).
November 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pmI cannot testify to the current status in common market countries, but my experience in the mid 1980’s was much warmer than anything else experienced in the good ole USA. Total expenditures were less than $150 for a family of five and that included drugs as well as dental. Eye glasses were free.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pmThe should get this question: This is my country, but I have no health insurance. What are my chances of surving a cancer like yours? No preventing care and no screenings are available to me to catch any disease early on.
By the way, Rudy’s ad makes false claims regarding survivability rates in the US and in ..socialist countries. Nevertheless, why so many Americans don’t understand that the best system in the world, if it’s not universally accessible, isn’t any good for all those millions uninsured and many more underinsured!
November 20th, 2007 at 7:47 pmOr, another observation: If Mr. Giuliani were in my shoes and got cancer, you’d be DEAD now!
November 20th, 2007 at 7:49 pmSpeaking of health–if it weren’t for the Democratic Party, we’d all be dead from DDT.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:45 amThe statistics Ghouliani gave were not just “misleading”. They were outright false and misleading.
There is a very good reason why out of the top 35 countries in the world, all the others have universal, single-payer, government-run healthcare. None of the others want our system. Ours is far too inefficient and costly.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pmJulieAndrews can twist the stats any way he pleases. The fact remains that until health care becomes a human right, then we have a huge problem in our country.
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 amEven if roger,roger is right he is still wrong. Those are just GOP talking points to distract everybody from a solution.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 amThe solution is not to have a national healthcare plan like England’s and the solution is not to ’stay the coarse’.
The solution is to have a national healthcare plan that is BETTER than the other nations.
1. “lifetime maximums” on health insurance policies kill you even if a pre-existing condition does not.
2. John Edwards’ claim he’d take away Congress’ health plan is HOOEY. He can’t do that - it’s against the law and he’d have to get THEM to write him up a new law. Unless he’s going with “Executive Orders” like Shrub. Damned ambulance chaser is LYING to us.
3. Hey Roger_Roger - how about a link to your “PROOF” sometime, hmm? I’d love to know who’s twisting your brain in knots.
4. #32 - $500 a month?!? WHERE? I need it! We pay almost $1,000 a month. And my condition’s not covered, it’s pre-existing….
5. #35 - yeah, COBRA exists - you are granted the PRIVILEGE of paying what your employer pays (along with a $2 monthly processing fee) - and you better hope that you can afford that amount (most employers still contribute something to the plan) AND you better hope they don’t change providers and end up screwing you out of your doc, which you need for your pre-existing condition. That’s what happened to me, and I couldn’t drop the insurance because I’d end up breaking coverage and being susceptible to the pre-existing clause. So, I pay outrageous premiums until I can find someone to cover me. Even though I have existing group insurance, carriers in our state don’t want the “risk” of my (permanent) illness.
Our company’s carrier DROPPED our firm because one of our employee’s spouses had breast cancer treated during the policy period. They did not want the risk. I’ve negotiated company policies for years - they are all bast*rds and the plans are clearly written to benefit carriers, not participants.
FINALLY: IF YOU HAVE KIDS, READ YOUR POLICY! THEY MADE BIG CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS:
NEW CLAUSES STATE THEY WON’T PAY FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED ON SKATE BOARDS, BICYCLES, ETC. Your kid breaks bones playing rough - your carrier isn’t likely to pay for it.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:15 pm