Despite what the Republicans say, it isn’t for a lot of people, especially if you have insurance companies targeting people who want to, you know, actually use their insurance for anything but a money sink. Not saying a single-payer, government run system would be without problems, but if you’re like the guy in the article, it’s hard to imagine it being worse.
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell’s case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration’s health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away with controversial and unpopular industry practices.
Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of “rescission,” whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they’ve been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.
[…]
Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: “The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer.” In upholding Nettles’ verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that “Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell’s costly medical condition.”
On a vaguely related topic, ever wonder how many doctors and nurses are beaten up by patients?
The idea that health care insurers would have stockholders, seems perverse to me. It’s like saying, the money that was collected over time from policy holders, to help treat whoever needs it the most. Will instead be siphoned off a bit to pay some speculators. Who expect to profit more, by the insurer providing less treatment than necessary. When exactly did the government start allowing insurers to sell stock in their “denying coverage” scheme? Gee, I think that was under the Nixon. Another mess to thank tricky Dick for. Him and his pal Henry Kaiser.
#77–well Shitty==you have me quite right. Let me add to it as I woke up with this thought:
What I demand/force/require in a totalitarian way is a rightful recognition of why we are on earth.
Not the liebertarian “its all about me” frame of mind but rather your totalitarian view of “what can we do for future generations?”
In that mode, I will rephrase it this way: No sane person wants to live in a society where the young are not “given”/forced to have an education. Parents “choose” to have kiddies==why shouldn’t they pay for the kiddies education? Why am I enslaved and have the jackboots take my house if I don’t pay property tax to educate kiddies I have had? Its not fair!!!! Its not FREEDOM!!!!!! whaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa. I want all my money…
I really don’t want to live in a society that does not educate its young. Likewise, I really don’t want to live in a society that does not provide healthcare to its needy. All according to death panel standards and the resources available for such activities.
My biggest complaint about the healthcare bill isn’t the pork spending, its that it doesn’t address the root cause(s) of our skyrocketing healthcare costs. Getting more people covered is great, but it doesn’t reduce the cost for all the people who already have it. If we’re not fixing why the costs are high, then having to subsidize someone else’s coverage just shifts cost around. There are so many things wrong with the system, but so few of those problems are addressed in this bill. The rest is just “lipstick on a pig” so to speak.
# 77 Xanthippa
First I’ll just start off by saying that it sounds pretty terrible what you are going though.
Not knowing the specifics I don’t about that situation where you are. What I can say is that in the US system you could
a) Have no health insurance
b) Have your health insurance terminated once they realize you are now an expensive patient – by finding previous conditions they can deny coverage with.
c) Unable to move because you can’t change policies because nobody will touch you
d) Can’t change jobs – because nobody will touch you
e) Have your insurance rate raised and raised so you can’t afford it.
f) Have to wait just as long or longer.
g) Go bankrupt.
So whilst it sounds like a bad situation. I wouldn’t assume its worse than what you’d have here. In fact for millions of hardworking Americans – its way better than what they have here.
#81 Daniel
“My biggest complaint about the healthcare bill isn’t the pork spending, its that it doesn’t address the root cause(s) of our skyrocketing healthcare costs”
Agreed.
There doesn’t seem to be anything to make it more efficient, or cost less. It just appears to force people without insurance to have it, and any extra constraints on insurance companies will just cause them to raise the rates.
Sounds great if you are an insurance company.
#85 Guyver
Good God man. I’m watching the John Stossel video.
So far – absolutely pathetic. Stossel is a condescending idiot. Why?
BECAUSE IF YOU GO TO ANY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY NONE OF HIS RETARDED PREDICTIONS ARE TRUE.
If getting a cancerous lump removed is free – does that mean I get more cancerous lumps. If getting my broken leg fixed is free do I go out and get a broken leg?
Because food makes a great analogy. (sarcasm)
Lets think of the ways they are dissimilar…
The non existent ‘popular band’. I mean wtf is this? Just straight propaganda? Look here’s a made up band singing some ridiculous drivel – lets show them how they got it wrong…
Right. Finally when he gets to the end he brings up a reasonable point. Namely that there isn’t transparency. But thats just another facet of it not being a market.
For the eye example given – it’s optional. You don’t have to do it. If its to expensive I can just not get it done. I can take my time. If I’ve broken my leg – I’m hardly going to be hunting around for the best prices.
As it turns out – his suggestion is pretty close to what my current arrangement is. But as a solution its another ‘experiment’. It has plenty of holes (what happens if I don’t have the money, and I break my leg) etc.
It isn’t transparent. It isn’t a market – because in many areas there is only one provider. It’s not like food or drink. Or cosmetic surgery. Its not a big problem people ‘using too much’.
It started off awful. Made one reasonable observation. It does demonstrate a way if you are reasonably wealthy you could do things – namely just use insurance as insurance.
86, FreddyBobs68K,
The overall message from Stossel is increasing medical expense coverage with lower deductibles actually costs people (as a whole) more.
Problem 1: According to Stossel, an average doctor will spend 14% of THEIR INCOME on staff to process insurance paperwork.
Problem 2: Actual costs of individual health care costs are hidden because others are paying for your treatment. This nurtures an indifference among patients over excessive or frivolous costs.
Problem 3: Health insurance was originally for major things like cancer or heart attacks. Now people want EVERYTHING be covered like a simple vaccine. (You’re dwelling on the band thing a wee bit too much)
Don’t kid yourself if you think health care isn’t a market. If you’re not in business to make a profit, you won’t be in business for long (unless you get a government bail out). Not to mention, there are plenty of choices in hospitals and clinics across the country. Perhaps if you’re in a small or rural area you may have limits, but not everywhere. So again, there is a market.
The lack of transparency is likely due to NDAs over pricing due to the competitive nature between insurance companies. The lack of transparency is further compounded with people who come to hospitals for trivial things. Yes there are plenty of those.
Stossel singled out grocery not because it was an “idiotic” comparison but because Whole Foods is taking a pragmatic approach to health care for its employees. He entertained the idea of how people would “shop” differently if their groceries were covered by a hypothetical insurance. Bottom line was Whole Food employees still got their health care, but they were more concerned with shopping for cheaper prices on non-critical health care due to higher deductibles. Translation: Things got more transparent as people shopped around and consequently the net effect was cheaper health care.
On the Lasik, you miss the major point. BECAUSE Lasik is NOT covered under insurance, people are price sensitive and will shop around. Competition amongst Lasik doctors drives costs down as well as featuring better / newer equipment. Government didn’t do that. Capitalism and competition did that.
And if you think the employees of Whole Foods are wealthy, then you’re probably living in some third world country.
Stossel made some interesting points, but it seems you saw what you wanted to see (like you did with my supposed hate towards poor people).
Bottom line – do you TRUST your government to do everything right for you the first time? Regardless of which party is in power at the time YOU need it most?
For the liberals here, do you trust the conservatives – should they regain control at some point in the next 20 years – to guide your every health care option?
And what is the track record of the CBO and the Feds at projecting costs and savings?
I won’t get into what the track record of efficiency and savings to the country Congress has been with managing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mare/Freddie Mac, military spending, earmarks, special deals for states or even regions within states.
This brand of politics stinks. Drain the swamp! As if insurance companies have a monopoly on corruption.
The government should ensure the safety of it’s citizens through oversight where needed. Not with a heavy hand across the board. What next? Should Congress run Wall Street to ensure every person never loses an investment? Should they drive every car to ensure no more accidents?
I find it amusing that the rules for mandatory coverage sit idle for several years. Perhaps the sheep will forget who voted for these bills when the bill for mandatory coverage kicks in.
All except for the unions. Their increases don’t come in until THEIR union bosses are sitting pretty in retirement.