I’ve been reading this discussion and trying to think of a reply that someone hadn’t already made, more eloquently than I could.
Simple yes
My first thought was the insurance companies could “mine” this info for ways to deny coverages, but they already could. If Bryan hadn’t stepped up and say who he worked for, we’d have been none the wiser.
Further, as has been said before, an insurance company’s goal is to make money. That is what the managers and officers are held accountable for and will guide most of their actions. The individuals who might monitor these site may be very sympathetic to our needs, but unable to affect company policy on what be some of the more important items to us (think CGMs) because of what management might see as an overly costly adverse effect on the bottom line.
Ask yourself, who is a bigger lobbying power? The insurance industry or the ADA/JDRF? Personally, I would bet on the money…
I hate insurance companys!!! They make me so mad every month. I think that social networks like this web site help people, but i don’t think it helps them change their behavior. Being able to talk to someone who is going thru the same thing you are is great. I think that insurance companies should just stay out we have to deal with you enough we don’t want to hear from you on our off time. They are just going to try to sell us some new drug thats not going to work. If insurance companies really want to help why don’t they pay their drug reps. less and make test stripes more affordable. I cant tell you how much i have paid into health insurance and the benefits still are not that great. I never asked to have diabetes and all my free money goes to living a healthy life. After i pay my $2000 deductable every year.
I have a question regarding insurance: What makes the insurance company think it knows better than my GP who I’ve been seeing for almost 10 years when it comes to which Statin to take. My GP had to call the insurance company and sign off for them to cover my Lipitor which I have been on FOREVER (or so it seems)…Seems to me a waste of time for my doc AND the insurance company itself
I am thinking that the insurance company dictates which drugs or equipment we will use by how much of the cost they will cover because they either think that it is less expensive or the pharma co has treated the insurance company execs to a trip to Europe.
I have for some time wondered WHY insurance companies get to PRACTICE MEDICINE w/o a degree or lic?
Another aspect is the ins co rate doctors and keep stats one how much any given doc costs THEM, IMO more so than the quality of medical care they give…
We need to make it happen: removing private insurers from health care, covering everyone, letting doctors make decisions that are best for their patients.
Both political parties are controlled by their contributors. People refuse to consider solutions that work around the world because these solutions don’t suit their ideology.
I see health care policy in America staggering from failure to failure. So far nobody has the political will to really improve things.
Until people demand action nothing will change. Meanwhile we’ll continue to go broke, suffer needless pain, and die early.
Gods forbid! In that case, EVERYONE will be broke with health costs… and we will get much WORSE care than we get now. Consider how few tests Medicare allows patients now… it will only get worse if EVERYONE is covered by Medicaid/Medicare and Medicaid/Medicare alone.
If we go completely nationalized, it’s only a matter of time before we will be actively allowed/caused to die because we cost to much to provide care for.
That’s where I see the problem. The AMA is lobbying strong to keep medical care costs where they are. Like any industry, medical care professionals do not want to see their incomes lessened. The pharma and medical supply and insurance companies don’t want to see their profits/incomes lessened. There is a lot of $$$ at stake, and a lot of $$$ would fight any nationalization of the industry.
Ideally, if there was only one paying consumer, the costs would go down to what they would pay.
There is also the arguement about the quality of care that could be effected by the loss of competition and/or opportunity for profit.
Every first-world country except the US has some sort of universal coverage without using private insurers.
Many of these other countries get better health care results than we do, and they spend significantly less than we do.
I have lived in some of these countries and I have family and friends there. They get the care they need, everyone is covered, and the cost is less than in the US. This is not fantasy; it’s working every day.
Believe me, many view the US system as inhumane. It’s clear that the present US system is deteriorating and proposals for patchwork reform will lead to more of the same.
The side of the coin I hear is people not getting enough insulin, not getting enough test strips, not being able to pay for more privately regardless of income, having to wait for doctor’s appointments or for surgery until something minor becomes something major, and lots of medical tourism to countries that have market-driven health systems (like the US used to be, and like many countries bordering between emerging and competitive economies still are).
The best thing we can do for healthcare in the United States is to remove the government completely from the process. Let the professional organizations certify their own members and police those who fraudulently claim certification, and let consumers choose the healthcare they wish, and can afford, and having information on the training and certification of the practitioners they choose to use.
Do not use the government to prohibit pharmaceutical innovation (Big Pharma uses it to squeeze out innovative smaller pharmaceutical research companies) or to subsidize Big Pharma (or other medical research).
I am lucky.
you dont need insurance in australia. i can see a doctor and dietician as much as i like, they have a 24 call centre, my needles, pens and test kits are free. the test strips and insulin are heavily subsidised.
i feel that i have all the support i need.
if insurance companies fill this role in the US then they definately need to be part of a holistic approach to well being.
maybe Obama will change the role of these companies, or perhaps get more government sponsorship behind the EDUCATION of what it means to be diabetic. needles and isulin and pumps are only one part of health and management.
First question: Anything in our culture, social networking sites included, has the potential to produce change, positive or negative. Social sites help people move out of the “Gesellschaft” feeling (that is, being just a piece of the entire thing), into the “Gemeinschaft” (this time, being “one” with the rest of the community)., having solidarity in a more personal sense, hence the term personals sites. From being alone, to being “I belong.”. What we make of this connection (Say, lobby for better healthcare for diabetics and other marginalized health sectors, or gang up on everyone who discriminates diabetics), is mostly our choice. But, to date, rarely, if at all, have we heard of SNS’s (social networking sites) doing a 180 for the worse. This means that we are headed the right track.
Second question: If we are to live in a socially acceptable community, everyone must have a role in promoting such, insurance companies included. But given the innate need of a group of people to associate, and the not-so good repute of some insurance companies decreases the value of the insurance company’s role in promoting this positive change.
(Sorry to make this sound like a sociology class…)
Just to clarify, I have nothing against insurance companies as a whole (My insurance company will pay for my hospital bill, if worse comes to worst). I just am being factual.
