Is This a Death Panel or Just Evil?

[NCVol]

I don't know how a business person who decides to do this can sleep at night.  

http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/SPECIAL-REPORT-Insurer-targeted-HIV-patients-to-drop-coverage-2010-03-17T133338Z

In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.

Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.
...
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.

Seriously, these people should be in jail for attempted murder.  They instituted policies that they KNEW would kill their policy holders.  If anyone wants to know why for profit and insurance is such a potentially devastating combination, this is it.  The company has an obligation to shareholders to legally minimize payments for claims.  In this case, that means targeting sick people with fraud investigations that if successful means life saving, but expensive, treatment is denied.  And so, profits really are maximized by putting their policy holders at risk of dying as a result of those profits.

THIS is what scares me about "death panels."  And the conflict CANNOT be solved - profits ARE maximized by DENYING payments for potentially life saving treatment and kicking off those policy holders who are sick or likely to become sick.  

[LTC]

death panels and rationing...already a norm for healthcare......but our resident wingnuts will probably juswt sway the SOB should have never gotten HIV...and the wonderful insurance company has a right to make more money!

[Sasquatch]

Uh...I think it would fall on the evil side.

NCVol, do you honestly believe, like your mental midget partner LTC, that "wingnuts" think this okay? I think I can speak for all "wingnuts" when I say that this is wrong. And I think it is the "wingnuts" who are more consistent on life/death issues.

For example, I wonder how the loons can sleep at night when one of their "instituted policies", abortion (talk about a death panel), is KNOWN to kill. And apparently we will soon have federal spending to support this policy that will kill its "policy holders".

[LTC]

 No language in the bills to fund abortions...again...sas, you are clueless!

[NCVol]

No, I don't think most decent people endorse rescission - targeting sick people for cancellation of their coverage.  But the for profit model of insurance demands that companies engage in the tactic to the extent it's legal.  That's the point I was trying to make.  If you are a public company and if your profits are maximized by DENYING COVERAGE and PAYMENT wherever and whenever it is legally permissible to do so, the board and CEO are obligated to deny coverage and payment whenever and wherever it is legally permissible to do so.  This is the fact of life with for profit insurers.  

Their self interest is maximized when they deny your insurance claim.  Their self interest is maximized when they cherry pick their insureds and use any tool at their disposal to deny coverage for anyone who will get sick, then to kick them off the rolls if and when a covered person does get a expensive illness.  If that doesn't work, they must use any tool at their disposal to deny coverage for medical procedures, then use any tool at their disposal to minimize the rate of reimbursement.  All along the line, every person in a for profit organization is rewarded for excluding the sick from coverage and NOT paying claims. It's simply the way the incentives are structured.  

This really is a big reason why my thinking on health insurance has changed.  I don't think the for profit model can work without massive interventions by the government to prevent, for example, the kind of tactic displayed here, to force coverage of pre-existing conditions, to prevent cherry picking, to prevent price gouging of those diagnosed with serious illness, etc.  And if we are going to mandate all that, there is no private market, not really, just a system of effectively guaranteed profits going to a handful of politically connected behemoth insurers - what we are fast seeing develop right before our eyes.  I think it is better to just make the process a single payer of some kind, and eliminate the for profit entities in the PAYER category, while continuing our tradition of private PROVIDERS (doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc.).  I simply cannot see the value added by BCBS or United Health over Medicare.  Can you?  

[Sasquatch]

No language in the bills to fund abortions...again...sas, you are clueless!

Interesting...I wonder why Stupak wants the language changed then?

Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak says he's open to a deal but will vote "No" on the health care bill unless changes are made to accommodate his more-stringent language that prevents federal funding for abortion. 

The language in the Senate health care bill restricts the use of public funds for abortion services. But private insurance plans that are offered in the insurance exchange can cover abortion if funds for the procedure are used only from premiums paid by beneficiaries. States have the option of banning coverage in insurance plans brought in insurance marketplaces.

Proponents of Stupak argue that language will not be enough to prevent federal funding from going toward those services.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/bart-stupak-firm-health-care-bill-obama-continues/story?id=10145630

[LTC]

You are clueless.....

[Sasquatch]

Proponents of Stupak argue that language will not be enough to prevent federal funding from going toward those services. [/i]

Maybe it is the proponents of Stupak that are clueless?

IOKIYAD 

[NCVol]

Interesting...I wonder why Stupak wants the language changed then?

I wonder, does your plan cover abortion?  Most do... If your plan does cover abortion, should you quit your job in protest, decline coverage, what is the proper response for all those people who have a moral objection to plans that cover abortion, like the medical plan for the RNC for the period 1991-2009?  After all, if you pay any deductible for your health insurance, a part of it is going to provide abortion coverage to the women in the plan who want that service. 

And since the private carriers all offer abortion coverage, even if a particular plan for a particular employer doesn't explicitly offer coverage, the premiums any policy holder pays are to some degree subsidizing abortion for all those plans that do offer the service.  Money is fungible, so the premiums from pro-life folks are getting mixed in with and paid out in some fashion to abortion doctors, even if not directly.

Seriously, I do understand the opposition to federal funding for abortion.  But really, the way to prevent abortions isn't by opposing this plan, which does require separate premiums for coverage.  The only way to really make a difference is to find a way to ban the procedure, or, alternatively, prevent unwanted pregnancies, provide support for unwed mothers who might otherwise get abortions, etc. 

[Sasquatch]

does your plan cover abortion? 

Has your plan ever used rescission? If your plan does use rescission, should you quit your job in protest or decline coverage?

Again, I wonder why Stupak wants the language changed? IOKIYAD.

Your thread title asks if rescission is a death panel or evil. I said evil. Just like I think abortion is both evil AND a death panel.

The only way to really make a difference is to find a way to ban the procedure, or, alternatively, prevent unwanted pregnancies, provide support for unwed mothers who might otherwise get abortions, etc. 

You just summed up the "wingnut" ideal for dealing with abortion.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Uh...I think it would fall on the evil side.

NCVol, do you honestly believe, like your mental midget partner LTC, that "wingnuts" think this okay? I think I can speak for all "wingnuts" when I say that this is wrong. And I think it is the "wingnuts" who are more consistent on life/death issues.

For example, I wonder how the loons can sleep at night when one of their "instituted policies", abortion (talk about a death panel), is KNOWN to kill. And apparently we will soon have federal spending to support this policy that will kill its "policy holders".

Sas,

It is YOUR side that continues to give a pass time and time again to insurance companies that deny coverage or cancel policies (legal or not) in order to maximize profits. I've read post after post on this forum from wingnuts like OMG and Just Wind who defend businesses at all costs and who demonstrate little or no compassion for their fellow human beings.

So, you tell me. It sure seems to me the GOP (who has opposed EVERY attempt at real health care reform) seem to think it is okay. They may say one thing, but their actions say otherwise.

I truly do not know how some posters here sleep at night. I'm not talking about you, but the others on the far right.