fate
Of course not.
But comparing the instance of where national health insurance won't pay for a service versus where a private insurance plan in the US refuses to pay ....... that would be a fair comparison. In the US, non-payment of insurance claims is standard procedure. Something like 25% of all claims are refused upon first receipt. In Canada 99.5% of bills are paid upon first receipt. (Its easier because every practitioner has only one place to submit request for payment. Fraud is easier to detect. And the administration is much much easier than where there are dozens of insurance companies to deal with...)
I'm only familiar with Canada, but usually when a service isn't covered, its because it isn't certified as an acceptable procedure or an acceptable remedy. meaning unproven. Which would mean that the doctor would have to get approval for use in a trial, which requires certain protocols.
On rare occasions there are controversies.
As for waiting for service... Its been established that in the US, demand for service is lower because a large percentage of people are not insured and cannot afford service. It will be interesting, when and if, the US ever has 100% insurance if there is a supply of medical services that meet the genuine demand and not just the demand of those who can afford to get treatment..
Ray
Guttmacher was also the source for the estimate of 1,035 abortions a year which are third trimester. After 24 weeks. Which is a tenth of 1%
Which puts this question ...
Fate
into perspective. if just over a 1,000 out of 1,000,000 are true late term abortions, and some subset of this is "of choice".
Its a very rarely made choice.
I'd rather they didn't make the choice Fate. I'd rather doctors had to justify their willingness to abort in these cases to a medical board to eliminate instance that weren't medically necessary.
But I wouldn't want a law that comprehensively eliminates the choice and penalizes the woman. Especially since the evidence suggests it is a very very rarely considered option.
So, if I look, I'll find no cases of governments refusing to pay for treatment? I'll find no cases of unreasonable delays? I'll find near-perfection?
Of course not.
But comparing the instance of where national health insurance won't pay for a service versus where a private insurance plan in the US refuses to pay ....... that would be a fair comparison. In the US, non-payment of insurance claims is standard procedure. Something like 25% of all claims are refused upon first receipt. In Canada 99.5% of bills are paid upon first receipt. (Its easier because every practitioner has only one place to submit request for payment. Fraud is easier to detect. And the administration is much much easier than where there are dozens of insurance companies to deal with...)
I'm only familiar with Canada, but usually when a service isn't covered, its because it isn't certified as an acceptable procedure or an acceptable remedy. meaning unproven. Which would mean that the doctor would have to get approval for use in a trial, which requires certain protocols.
On rare occasions there are controversies.
As for waiting for service... Its been established that in the US, demand for service is lower because a large percentage of people are not insured and cannot afford service. It will be interesting, when and if, the US ever has 100% insurance if there is a supply of medical services that meet the genuine demand and not just the demand of those who can afford to get treatment..
Ray
Here's a website with some good seemingly unbiased stats on abortions in the US. There are about 1 million per year and about 1% of those are after 20 weeks, or about 10,000 per year. Roughly 2/3rds are 8 weeks or earlier and 90% are 20 weeks or earlier
Guttmacher was also the source for the estimate of 1,035 abortions a year which are third trimester. After 24 weeks. Which is a tenth of 1%
Which puts this question ...
Fate
It's not about "rare cases" where the mother's life is in jeopardy, it's about cases where it's not
into perspective. if just over a 1,000 out of 1,000,000 are true late term abortions, and some subset of this is "of choice".
Its a very rarely made choice.
I'd rather they didn't make the choice Fate. I'd rather doctors had to justify their willingness to abort in these cases to a medical board to eliminate instance that weren't medically necessary.
But I wouldn't want a law that comprehensively eliminates the choice and penalizes the woman. Especially since the evidence suggests it is a very very rarely considered option.