Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
Avatar universal

If you think this cannot happen to you? Think again!

I am sorry this is so long, but I feel is one of the things people against health care reform fail to see. Your thoughts?

What Happens Now, After Health Insurance Industry Refuses to Stop Cutting the Sick?
June 17, 2009 by archrone

Apparently, nothing much.

Let’s back up, a moment. Health insurers have been regularly cutting policy holders from their rolls that have been diagnosed with such diseases as breast cancer, lymphoma, and a multitude of other ailments. This act of cutting the sick from coverage rolls is called, in the industry, recission. And, some in congress have been investigating health insurers recission practices.

So, it should come as no surprise that yesterday, in congressional hearings, three main insurers told congresscritters that they have no intention of stopping their receission practices.

Executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation’s healthcare system.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

Now, our congresscritters are trying to get these insurers to agree to only cutting folks from their rolls when the person applying for health insurance gives fraudulent information in order to get that insurance. But, the health insurance companies are having none of that. In fact, they have every intention of continuing dropping the sick from their rolls. Why would the sick get recinded?

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

But, these actions are not just the fault of policy holders. These insurance companies praise workers that find ways to drop sick policy holders. And, not just sick policy holders, but pregnant policy holders as well.

Recission is an ugly practice, and one that the insurers agressively follow. If they didn’t follow that, why in the world would their workers be praised in preformance reviews for cancelling thousands of policies?

The committee’s investigation found that WellPoint’s Blue Cross targeted individuals with more than 1,400 conditions, including breast cancer, lymphoma, pregnancy and high blood pressure. And the committee obtained documents that showed Blue Cross supervisors praised employees in performance reviews for rescinding policies.

One employee, for instance, received a perfect 5 for “exceptional performance” on an evaluation that noted the employee’s role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

As it stands, the insurance companies have no incentive to stop this rescission practice, as they have no incentive to curtail costs. These are businesses where their main concern is profit, profit, and more profit. These companies are NOT in the business to help you, no matter what PR campaign they come up with to sway you to believe otherwise.

Last week, I noted a post over at Knoxviews which pointed out the president of BCBSofTN getting a salary boost, and I have a feeling recission plays a part in his salary. At the very least, a public-option must be part of the health care reform being played out in Washington as I type. Unfortunately, a public option that will be available to people that were cut from insurers, as well as the current uninsured isn’t going so well.

Perhaps most important, Obama has not yet demonstrated how hard he’s prepared to fight for the so-called “public option”—a government-run alternative to private insurance—or what such a reform might entail. At the AMA, Obama reiterated his position that one of the choices available to Americans “needs to be a public option.” But could this position be a straw man, set up only to be knocked down? The public plan has certainly served as a panacea to single-payer advocates and other critics of medicine for profit, including important Democratic constituencies like labor unions. One health care advocate told me that the speculation around town was that the administration could eventually abandon the public option in order to win bigger concessions from its opponents.

So, what plan would cover those that the greedy insurance companies have rescinded? Single payer would begin to take health care out of the so-called free market system, that has failed so miserably. It would be a stop-gap measure that would cover those that have been rescinded for some ridiculous reason by the for-profit insurance companies. As a single payer system is not even being discussed, the next best option is a public option, and as Ridgeway notes, even a public option has little chance of being affordable, equitable and available for the people that need the coverage the most. And this, folks, is one of the saddest commentaries about our current health care system.
52 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
535822 tn?1443976780
Did you see some of the ridiculous things that the stimulus is being spent on ...massage parlors, sex tests in Rats ,google it I have never seen such madness,  there was a list of many of the craziest items imaginable .in CA not too far from where I live there is a small smelt fish, they have turned off the water to allow this fish to survive ...all the folks living in the area cannot get any water , its a dry desert all the crops have died ,no work ,the farmers are going bust ,now I love the enviroment but surely Humans are important aswell its gone crazy.
Helpful - 0
458072 tn?1291415186
I was just reading anothers post about going to the VA hospital.

Now there is just another fine example of just how excellent our  healthcare system is going to be when the government runs it.
Helpful - 0
585414 tn?1288941302
Yes I am well aware of that. The stimulus act has not created any permanent jobs and although it was right for people who had lost their jobs to extend unemployment insurance they are in for a rude awakening when it is lost which eventually will happen. I do know that the phrase the depression was coined by Herbert Hoover who said "its not a reccession. Its just a mere depression." I hope we are not in for the same thing but I do not see any measurable economic improvement but many false hopes.
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
Good input RJ you are rigfht ..of course it makes more sense to work on the  jobs  we know that this government is making it all worse ...
Helpful - 0
458072 tn?1291415186
you are so right.  Spending what we don't have is never the answer for anyone, be it personal or business. It just won't equal out.....under any circumstances. you end up running faster and faster and end up backing up as opposed to moving ahead.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
If Bush had previously bailed out banks and it didn't work, why would Obama do the same thing. Banks made bad loans. They are under both State and Federal Regulations. When the banks had trouble that hit them the worse was because people could not pay the loans, either from not enough income v. the loan the bank approved them for, or unemployment. Giving Banks money, to me was not the way to go. How could it change anything when so many people were out of work, or scared they soon would be. A person will pay home loans before they worry about a credit card. Not paying a credit card won't put your family in the street.

Wouldn't it make more sense to work on the jobs, freeing up money for the individuals, giving tax cuts for businesses, and refund the money to people instead of the banks? If the people could pay their loans, the banks will have their money. They can't lend if people have no money to borrow. The money circulates from payments coming back in. Big businesses closed up from not selling to customers. The auto industry could have continued to make money, if they sell. It all roots back to the individual citizens. We have no money in our pockets even if we do work because taxes from every direction takes it. The more money they print, the less our dollars will buy. With the unemployment status getting worse, and the banks lending no more, unless they are making "bad loans" again, how are they paying back large loans to the government? There are still foreclosure signs everywhere and the economy is not any better here. You can't buy a job.

I worked in lending institutions for many years, doing all of it. If we didn't lend and circulate the in and out, we would fall. Finally, the banks started refinancing and lowering rates, when they didn't need a bail out to offer that. They had that power in their hands, so they decided to take trips and blow our money. I didn't see the IRS putting any of them in jail. Had it been us, we would still be looking behind bars. I worked a lot of deliquent accounts, and I had to come up with a plan to help those that started running into problems. Lenders don't wait until it is running into the degree they claimed before you take actions to solve the problems.

The way I see it, if the banks had those kind of problems, they were at fault for a large part of it, and loss jobs were the other. The focus on stop taxing businesses and people into bankruptcy would have brought us a long way. If the money is not in the hand of the people to purchase, the lender or businesses will not survive. Putting money in autos, to keep those workers in a job, is useless if they can't sell it. So, all the spending the government is doing is just making matters worse, because it is taking more money out of our pockets. We may as well give them our pay checks.

No matter who put what where, this is where we are, and spending is not an answer.

Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
Ha Ha well they sure rushed that healthcare through very quickly...what was the hurry there .....
Helpful - 0
458072 tn?1291415186
We knew what they did with it pretty quickly.....
Helpful - 0
306867 tn?1299249709
Yes we knew about them but we did not know the outcome did we ?
Helpful - 0
458072 tn?1291415186
nothing moves to quickly in Washington? We knew about the auto bailouts when they happened.
Helpful - 0
306455 tn?1288862071
Well, Peggy, I don't know. I guess you'd have to ask the author of the article (By JIM KUHNHENN ), NBCWashington.com. But I'm guessing the reason had something to do with the fact that Bush signed it in Oct 08, Banks probably got that money Oct-Dec 08 and then it took a little bit of time to see what they did with it and investigate it, decide if it should report it etc. Nothing moves to quickly in Washington.
Helpful - 0
458072 tn?1291415186
Of course these reports were from unbiased sources.

Since you guys seem so educated, then please explain why this is reported in feb 09 as opposed to when it happened. That seems very strange to me.
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
Ha Ha Ha 'Strengthening Transparency.and accountability,  ...lol ....what transparency are you talking about ....we havent seen any but OBama kept talking about it ......
Helpful - 0
306455 tn?1288862071
Peggy,
Here's an article about Bush's bail-out. No need to thank us for your education. LOL
Copyright Associated Press First Published: Feb 6, 2009 11:29 AM EST
WASHINGTON  — The Bush administration overpaid tens of billions of dollars for stocks and other assets in its massive bailout last year of Wall Street banks and financial institutions, a new study by a government watchdog says.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released Friday, said last year's overpayments amounted to a taxpayer-financed $78 billion subsidy of the firms.

The findings added to the frustrations of lawmakers already wary of the $700 billion rescue plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congress approved the plan last fall, but members of both parties criticized spending decisions by the Bush administration and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Financially ailing insurance giant American International Group, which the Treasury Department deemed to be too big to be allowed to fail, received $40 billion from the Treasury for assets valued at $14.8 billion, the oversight panel found.

In December, in response to questions from the oversight panel, the department wrote that the value of preferred stock purchased by the government was "at or near par," meaning Treasury paid $1 for every $1 dollar of asset.

"The way the Treasury secretary described it does not fit with the numbers that were produced in our much more extensive valuation analysis," panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren told reporters Friday. "The secretary of the Treasury described it in December that these were par transaction and that is not supported by the numbers."

The continued scrutiny comes as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner prepares to place the Obama administration's imprint on the program with a sweeping new framework for helping banks, loosening credit and helping reduce foreclosures. Geithner plans to unveil the changes Monday.

And while Paulson is gone and Geithner is in charge, the program itself remains in the hands of Neel Kashkari, a holdover from the Bush administration.

In December, Kashkari defended the Treasury purchasing strategy as bank stock prices dropped.

"We're not day traders, and we're not looking for a return tomorrow," he said. "Over time, we believe the taxpayers will be protected and have a return on their investment."

In a bright spot for the rescue program, the same banks that received capital infusions from Treasury have already paid $271 million in dividends to the federal government and are expected to pay $1.5 billion more in dividends by the end of this month. Wells Fargo, which received a $25 billion infusion, has already announced it would pay Treasury $371 million in dividends this month.

The oversight panel examined 10 transactions, including eight made under a capital purchase program designed to put liquidity into the banks in hopes of easing credit. That money went to banks considered "healthy" financially but in need of capital to make loans.

Two other transactions went to AIG and to Citigroup Inc. under programs designed to help companies that were facing serious financial difficulties.

Overall, the panel and the analysts it retained to conduct the valuation study found that the Treasury used taxpayers' money to pay $62.5 billion more than the value of assets in the 10 transactions it examined. By extrapolating to the more than 300 institutions that received money, the panel concluded that the government in effect paid $78 billion more than the actual value of the assets at the time.

"Treasury chose to offer 'one size fits all' pricing in order to encourage all institutions to participate, and in so doing disregarded apparent differences in their financial condition," the report states. "A consequence is that Treasury effectively offered weaker participants greater subsidies than it offered to stronger participants."

Reacting to the panel's conclusions, Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said in a statement: "Treasury's efforts since the fall prevented a systemwide collapse, but more needs to be done to stabilize the financial sector, increase lending and protect taxpayer dollars."

He said the plan Geithner will announce Monday aims to free up credit, "while strengthening transparency and accountability measures so that taxpayers know where and how their money is being spent and whether it's achieving real results."

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the overpayment was sure to "raise eyebrows."

"I can understand some gap," he said. "No one is expecting perfection between the price you pay and what you think you're getting. But that's a pretty large disparity."

Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
check out U.S.National Debt Clock.org.......yes I saw the Bush bailout ...check out the spending now and blame Bush
Helpful - 0
306455 tn?1288862071
Peggy, you really do need to educate yourself a little more before stating what you believe to be facts.  Here's a site that will show the National Debt by presidential term, nice and orderly, so even you can understand it.  And as you'll be able to see, the last 9 terms of presidents (not counting Obama) each Republican president has put the country into a deficit and each democrat pulled it out. THESE ARE THE FACTS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
From Politifact"

"....That brings us back to the Freedom Project's claim. By one standard — total dollars — the group is right that fiscal year 2009 will have the largest deficit in history. But it comes up second if you measure it by share of GDP, as many economists prefer. As for the second part, it's not correct to blame all the spending on Democrats. Yes, the Obama administration and the Democratic-led Congress are responsible for a good chunk of that spending — but many elements were backed by lots of Republicans, including President Bush. The Freedom Project glosses over this important detail, so we rate the claim Half True."

http://tinyurl.com/ye2tsjd
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
It figures that you say something like "what bailout did Bush do? Haven't heard of one before this site. " I hope most people know a little about the history of the bank bailouts.

"The amended version of H.R. 1424 was sent to the House for consideration, and on October 3, the House voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law.[6][11][12] President Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its congressional enactment, creating a $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program to purchase failing bank assets.[13]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
OMG   go to zFacts .com for a shock at the National debt trillions and counting,, there is a clock there ,, there is no way it was near it when Bush was in Office, take a look at the facts ....
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
you know I am actually googling this to see what the debt was before OBama took office
Helpful - 0
458072 tn?1291415186
what bailout did Bush do? Haven't heard of one before this site.

And how is he going to give tax cuts when there is such a huge deficit already?  They have been having to print out more money, and there is not even the gold to back it. The money comes from the taxpayers not the government.

Everyone loves to blame Bush for the wars. I guess he caused the 9/11 attacks as well.

With all due respect, you might want to check your facts......

Helpful - 0
306867 tn?1299249709
Peggy, with all due respect you need to check your facts. I'm not sure where you get your info.    Bush inherited a surplus of money not debt ( fact).The first, and I believe largest bank bail-out was while Bush was president, not Obama (fact).  The national debt was off the recktor scale when Obama took office (fact). It was Bush that brought us into 2 wars and one of those was based on a lie.. Obama is trying to get tax cuts approved for the middleclass.
Helpful - 0
535822 tn?1443976780
I absolutly dont think that anyone can put all the blame on Bush, after 9.11 we were kept safe ,but now because of the complacency and the demeaning of the CIA we are as unsafe if not more than we wre before 9.11   look what happened on Christmas Day ..look at the Fort Hood Fiasco..How can Bush be to blame for all this trillions of debt now, yes we all know some of it started then , but what is happening now is on this administrations watch ..He has weakened us as a Nation in the eyes of the world even reputable papers like the Times in England have queried some of his policies.Anyway we have differing opinions we see it all in a differant light. I think that sometimes he has been allowing the 'zsars' he has surrounded himself with to make decisions for him,he  needs the strength of them and relies on it .He is good at making speeches but thats it ....
Helpful - 0
458072 tn?1291415186
at least Bush didn't give banks and those other business's billions of dollars of my tax money, that I sure could use myself.  I don't see obama giving taxpayers a bailout and we are the ones that put the money in there to start with.
Helpful - 0
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.

You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group

Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.