Health Care

I spent several hours on line one day last week applying for medical insurance.  I've started my own company, and have to care for the single asset of my new firm, namely, my own self.  It would also be prudent to insure my new company (which is to say myself) against catastrophic medical expenses.

The paperwork and forms were time-consuming and tedious, but a recognized and necessary requirement of the process.  That didn't make it any more fun, however.

Friday (the 13th, naturally), I received notification in the mail that my application had been rejected. "This decision does not reflect a clinical viewpoint," they explained, "but is based strictly on underwriting risk."  As I understand it, they're saying they're not going to offer me health-care insurance because their underwriters think it's statistically too probable that I may want to actually avail myself to some of that health care some day.

So back to the drawing board.  I'll apply to other companies, and go through the paperwork process again, but now with the added burden of having to answer "yes" when asked if I've ever been turned down for health-care insurance.

This is the problem with the American way, such as it is, of medical care.  Putting no less valuable a resource than our own personal health into the hands of for-profit companies, some publicly traded, does not assure equal and equitable distribution of care.  No wonder the 1% are against health-care reform and want to repeal our nation's new rules - if you've already purchased the very best, why would you want anyone else getting a little of the services that you've acquired?

The Health Care Reform Act of 2010 is but a tentative first step in the right direction for reforming the American health-care system.  We must keep the Republicans (or for that matter anyone threatening to "repeal Obamacare") from getting stronger control in Washington than they already have in order to protect what little progress has been made.