I do hope you are kidding!!!

Better to die free than have my aids treatment paid for by any form of socialism. That sh*# you just said makes absolutely no sense. I much rather have my treatment paid for and live than die. But first of all, I think I am smart enough to protect myself from an STD and avoid this medical nightmare altogether in the first place.

snake,

You might just be the one that gets droped from the cancer treatment because you were in a room with smokers 40 years ago.

Get real STUPID

This kind of coverage denial will continue even if Obama care is passed! Just because they have written in to the bill that insurance companies cannot deny pre-existing illnesses, does not mean that there is language preventing insurance companies from denying other coverages and procedures.

The more complex a bill is, the more opportunity for interpretation and loop holes! This bill is not going to fix the system in any way. In fact, they may provoke a pissing contest with the insurance companies, at our expense.

Hows those credit card fees and intrest rates treating you? The government is already in one pissing contest with the finance industry, thats just money! Do you realy want them to piss on your health care too?

recission will be eliminated for the most part.

And of course I was kidding, very sarcastically.

Where do you get that out of all this?

How exactly is this going to eliminate recession? By increasing government to enforce this bill? How is that sustainable? Government is too top heavy already! Increasing taxes in an already bad economy will only hurt those who are already hurting, more!

You had me going there!

It eliminates ricission by making it illegal to not insure a person, no matter what the condition.

See, you can't make it a law that everyone must be insured, then allow recission.

Where have you been?

See, you can't say "you must be insured, but nobody must insure you"

Duh.

I've been trying to find a JOB! That's where I have been, and it is a full time job with lots of expenses!

This bill has only sited "pre-existing conditions". This still leaves open rescission. If you look at it from the insurers point of view, instead of the idealistic "health care reform must be good" view, then the loop holes are visible.

Insurance companies have staffs of lawers to dissect this bill and expose every weakness, and you know they will.

You're an idiot.

No it doesn't. Both the Seante and the House Bills have specific language that states insurance must accept ALL, and that if you pay, you are covered.

Don't take my word for it, look at the bills themselves, and not some pundits explanation.

Talk about death panels.

no clarke the billsays that the insurance companies cannot drop you for a pre-existing customer. There is absolutely nothing that states insurance companies have to insure you. They can just choose to not have you as a customer. Where the regulation comes into play is that they cannot deny you insurance for a pre-existing condition. If you fail to disclose a pre-existing condition they can still drop you for falsification of information.

You are wrong.

They must accept all applicants.

Just to clear up the conversation, these are the immediate benefits on passage of the bill you'll see that Rescission is number two on the list:

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Good for this young man for pursuing this crap pulled by his insurance company - I only hope in the mean time he was able to receive treatment.

This kind of behavior by insurance companies is criminal. That said, we should not be using "insurance" as a method to deliver medical services. We need a complete change to a contract based service - yes it will still require some administration, but we need to get out of the "insurance" business and directly into the "delivering medical services" business.

And any of you thinking that this bill will save money is truly an idiot. This is going to be a multi-trillion dollar expansion of an already gigantic industry.

That the federal government will be more involved than they already are just speaks to the fraud and abuse expansion that will surely follow.

These morons cannot manage a cash-for-clunkers program without grossly underestimating demand (not to mention wasting $3 billion on sales that were already going to happen, only damaging sales in the following months, putting people into new debt and destroying perfectly good autos), and you think they will succeed with this?

The comment "Better to die free than have my aids treatment paid for by any form of socialism" really takes the cake. So now insurance companies in the private sector are a form of Socialism - honestly, you have no concept of what an Insurance company is or in this case should be! So taxes for the roads you drive on and the National Defense or the purchase of insurance from a private sector company are now all forms of socialism?!? To much FOX and to little introspection, critical thinking or common sense my friend. You need to think - its not that hard!

I LOVE judges who go off on illegal behavior and we only got a taste of the "unsealed" records.

I am torn after reading this story. This kid bought health insurance BEFORE he was diagnosed with a pre-existing condition.

I believe that people with health problems should have access to health care at reasonable prices.

With hospitals and doctors charging $40 for an aspirin, my head is spinning trying to come up with a solution.

So far, none of our politicians have gotten it right.

Paul F

Let me know if you run for office. I will work on your campaign.

Why is it that no one seems to understand the simple facts you present?

Recission actions have typically been based on failure to identify "pre-existing conditions" which they (the insurance companies) said was fraud on the part of the person desiring health insurance. I read one story where they used a visit to a dermatologist for acne as a teenager as the pre-existing condition when a woman developed cancer and her policy was cancelled. I have read similar stories of recession based on comments in the margins. The prohibition of recissions will for the most part eliminate the pre-existing condition garbage since it was all bogus anyway. It would be like finding your car insurer cancelled your car insurance back to the day of the accident that totalled your car because after inspecting your car they determined that while you said you would drive 15K miles per year in fact you drove 20K. We haven`t seen that yet. We similar activity on home insurance though but in a different way..... "yes we said you had replacement value insurance and yes we gave you a new valuation last year but really there is a cap of XXXX so no we will not be giving you the total amount for what it costs to replace your house."

This is one of the items in the bill that make me want to see this voted in because I find the whole behavior to have been unethical, immoral and it should have been made illegal years ago.

When Mr. Ham testified to Congress I was appalled that when he made the statement that all insurance companies had to do this to ensure they made a profit that not one of the congressman stood up and said "excuse me" and then went after them for the scum sucking "Denebian slime devils" that they were who were in actuality "tin plated over bearing swaggering dictator with delusions of godhood."

While Ham was the only one to openly and proudly state this recession fact he was not the only CEO at the table who does this as this article shows. Nevertheless, where was The Press after this? Why did they not start hounding them on this issue? On the immorality of this behavior? The cowardice of the behavior where obvious efforts were undertaken to hide the behavior (lack of any and all documentation, entire staffs devoted to this, computer programs written to identify specific high cost diseases) alone should have been front page news in every newspaper and news program with names of CEOs, CFOs, COO, so called investigators etc.

Had these companies been honest and upfront in their policies stating that we will cover you for minor illness and accident and the identification of significant disease but upon the finding of such a disease your policy will be terminated then I would say they had a legal leg to stand on. But they didn`t even though they operated that way. No one would have bought their policies otherwise. Yet here they collect enormous monthly premiums with that intent.

Insurance is the main reason we have a health-care problem!

dave, true...the biggest obstacle is people NOT Learning to Care for themselves...by that I mean personal hygiene, morals, insidious behavior..one can hurt/ destroy themselves in their own way to where ; NO Doctor, Hospital or Insurance entity Can actually SAVE THEM..I had one character approach me in life; Stating that his Job was unbearably hard on his eyes and he actually thought there was a eyeball bank..that can give him a new set of eyeballs..the message is; if you cannot care for yourself reasonably, nothing is going to save you..you Damage your own Body, and you may be sorry for LIFE.......

Stories like this contain all the evidence we need that something has got to be done.

Yes, people should take better care of themselves but that will not solve all our problems. My uncle never smoked a day in his life but died of lung cancer. People are victims of violence, car accidents, natural disasters, you name it...and when they are they need health care.

Another frivolous lawsuit, lawyer picking on the insurance company. Oh, I forgot, it was a jury of Americans that decided the case, and nailed the insurance company. Well simple , do away with jury trials when a insurance company is involved. (don't laugh, there is such a proposal being pushed by insurance company's, to only arbitrate, no jury trials, allowed.) When you take the power away from the people, the people then become slaves.

Whew! Glad to hear that because I was going to break your bubble by telling you that we already HAVE socialized medicine-Medicare, Medicaid, V.A., State programs for kids under 12. And btw, my husband's Medicare is infinately less problematic than ANY private insurance he had during his working ys.- things are spelled out in balck & white, people who can & will answer qustions, etc. I'm just risking it-going bare-for another 19 months until I can get what HE has. Pray for me that I don't get hit by a truck or fall down staires.

The current health bill would help this situation. Benefits immediately available after the bill passes:

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Sure, a 17 year old decides to buy health insurance for themselves.

I guess he's independently wealthy. I thought health insurance was too expensive. And I guess College is cheap too these days.

And the nurse is obviously a liar too.

Or maybe he knew he had AIDS. It's not like he couldn't have been tested at a clinic that would not provide the court with the results. It's not like the insurance company could find out without a subpoena.

He may have known that he was with someone with AIDS. Then he decides to get insurance.

So we all can pay for his reckless behavior.

He may have infected someone else. (Now if that's you, you can go after the money he just won.)

It just doesn't pass the smell test. 17 year olds don't get their own health insurance. It's much cheaper to get on your parents. So you say his parents don't have health insurance? Then how does he have extra money to get his own? Especially with the expense of college. And if he wasn't sick already, why would you get health insurance on the person least likely to use it? Wouldn't you want to insure the breadwinner of the family instead?

His story sounds very fishy.

Those people have retarded maturity. No compassion, just hardened black and white thinking like a spoiled teenager. Anti-insurance reform activists mocking a disabled Parkinson's victim: "Nothing for free you have to work for everything you get!"

http://trueslant.com/christopherthomas/2010/03/17/political-darwin-award-anti-healthcare-protesters-ridicule-parkinsons-victim/

To Ryan in Texas. Some might call you insensitive. I consider myself very liberal. I actually support the new health care plan. But I agree with your assersion. It doesn't make sense for a seventeen year old to purchase private insurance on his own. The cost at that age can be at least 400 dollars a month, even six years ago. That is no small sum for a college student. And if his parents had money he would surely be on their employers insurance or their private insurance. I believe he suspected that he was with someone that was HIV pos. and decided to get insurance before he was diagnosed.

Super T - We wouldn't agree on much, but it just sounded odd to me.

I won't be buying my insurance from those guys, though.

And actually it does make sense for a 17 yr old to buy health insurance. We don`t have the back story but we have received stuff in the mail all the time before our kids began college trying to sell low cost health insurance. For the most part it is a great gimmick to get them into policies which insurance companies expect to have to pay very little on. Had his family not had health insurance because it was too expensive this might have been viewed as an inexpensive way to get him into the system. It could be that he bought it through the college clinic in fact. Humana is the insurance provider for my sons college. We don`t use it as he is covered by our own insurance but many students do have it.

He purchased insurance in 2001, got diagnosed in 2002. What a coincidence. Responsible 17-year-olds drive safely, go to college, work hard in school. Maybe get a job. They don't buy health insurance! If he was particularly health-minded, then he would not have contracted HIV. I mean, it's the modern U.S. There are only two ways to get HIV: unprotected intercourse or non-sterilize intravenous drug use. That doesn't sound like a responsible or health-minded kid to me.

Does MSNBC expect us to buy this story? He knew he had HIV. There are anonymous HIV testing clinics all over the place. Or maybe it was even simpler... maybe his girlfriend was diagnosed with HIV and that tipped him off. It takes up to 6 months after infection to get a positive test, so it's likely he bought insurance before he could even get a positive test. But he knew he had it... this is fraud.

Most, if not all, colleges require some form of health insurance. HIV is not NECESSARILY an STD. People still get it through non sexual fluid transfer/contact. Even if it is his "fault" it does not mean he should be left to die, unless, of course, you believe every single smoker, drinker, over eater, non exercising, knowingly working-living in unhealthy conditions person is also to be denied coverage. That pretty much covers most of us. Get human people. Maybe even stop casting those stones. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum.

No, I'm not saying that this HIV-positive kid is not entitled to medical care. I'm just saying that it might not be the insurance company's responsibility to pay for it. If he knowingly contracted HIV, then bought health insurance in anticipation of the costs, that is fraud. That applies whether he was shooting heroin or got a dirty blood transfusion. If he realized he had HIV (whether or not his medical records show it), he had no right to buy that policy as a healthy patient. He needed to be honest about his preexisting condition.

Perhaps society needs to provide a safety net for young individuals with serious medical conditions so they do not feel compelled to commit insurance fraud to pay for their care. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether the insurance company in this case had a right to rescind the policy. If it was as fraudulent as it certainly looks, then of course they did.

When things don't add up, it's fair to consider the possibility of fraud. And I'm telling you, a 17-year-old who is responsible and health-minded enough to buy his own insurance is not likely to engage in risky behavior resulting in AIDS. It's not about whether it was his fault or not for contracting HIV... it's about a story that sounds remarkably suspicious.

JLM you have NO proof he knew ahead of time he had HIV. Others here are right....a number of colleges DO require health insurance and a number of them offer it at group rates.

Is your assertion because he is 17, or because he is black?????

Grow a heart, would ya.

The article specified that he went out of his way to buy private insurance. If he was compelled to buy health insurance by his college, rather than his own convictions of personal responsibility, then the author was being deceptive. But I only have this article to go by, so my comments are going to assume the information from this article was correct.

My "assertion" (or more accurately, suspicion) is neither based on age nor race, but the fact that he bought private health insurance just months before getting a serious (and expensive) medical diagnosis. It is either fraud or a very lucky coincidence.

There is really no way to prevent someone from getting an anonymous HIV diagnosis, or finding out about infection some other way, and then purchasing health insurance before confirming the diagnosis. Not if the patient does it in the early stages of infection. Unlike pregnancy, there's no accurate way to determine when one acquired the condition (unless the patient is in the advanced stages of AIDS). So fraud is very possible. It's also possible to acquire any number of serious medical conditions days after purchasing insurance, including HIV. So rescinding a policy is not necessarily justifiable. At best, the patient would have to be given the benefit of the doubt that he/she really did acquire the illness (or learn about the illness) AFTER purchasing the policy. But to award millions of dollars for something that was very likely fraudulent... that does not sound just. Such punitive damages should be reserved for blatant contract violations. Not situations where the insurance company was rightfully suspicious.

I suppose if insurance companies really wanted to protect themselves from preexisting conditions, they should be willing to pay for complete physical exams for new customers. But it's cheaper to have them fill out a questionnaire instead, and rescind the policy if it turns out they lied. (And cheaper for them means lower premiums for everyone else, though there has to be some standard of reliability or insurance is worthless.) It would have been a good idea, in this case, to require an HIV test before granting the policy, and specify that medical treatment for HIV would not be compensated if a diagnosis was made within 6 months of beginning the policy (because it takes 6 months after infection to get a diagnosis). But such a policy would require a lot of emphasis on HIV, and there are plenty of other, more common conditions that insurance companies have to worry about.

My thoughts exactly! They have absolutely no concern for any human being beyond themselves!

OK, it is off subject, but have you ever noticed how most "born again" or "fundamentalist" Christians have to TELL you they're a Christian? Is it b/c you wouldn't know otherwise? I recall a New Testament lessons (read on Ash Wednesday or during Lent, at least in the Episcopal church) that implies others should know you're a Christian through actions (i.e. how you live your life and treat others ALL THE TIME, even when no one is watching) rather than having to announce it so everyone knows you did "something good." I guess no one ever told the far right you don't have to be "saved," we should all help others and do good deeds b/c it's the right thing to do, without involving religion. Cheers from a happy polytheist who suggests you go out and do a random act of kindness today!

I've been saying that too. The most uncaring, judgmental, money loving people are the ones spouting God this and God that. They don't give a crap about humanity but worship the almighty dollar.

Well you know "Let me" sometimes the only way to hide the blood on your hands is to try to hide in the cloak of Christ.

I am a Republican and on the low side of middle class so that leads me to believe that you have your head up your rear end and having no idea of what you are talking about.This company was wrong but you are just a stupid on blaming it on a political party.

So go back and crawl in the hole you came out of!!!!!

Actually, she is pretty on target. Look at this:

American Medical Assn
$26,307,905
39% to Dems and
60% to Republicans.

Pfizer Inc
$18,334,470
29%to Dems and
70% to Republicans.

OK all of you pompous snobs that start bashing the Christians as soon as you can.

My only question is How is the Kid? He got his $10Mill or should I say his attorneys got his $10Mill. But the story doesn't tell us how he is doing and if he ever got the treatment and from whom.

Sorry, I found it an unnamed clinic saved his life but still how is he doing now. We are only interested in the verdict about the Insurance company and all of the finger pointing. How did this make it better for the next ones that get cancelled? Are they working with Fortis to make sure that it improves its system? Will Fortis procure some funds to get more clinics opened as they do their pentance? Will you Lefties ever forgive them what they did?

And the company president ENDORSES THE OBAMA PLAN.

Think about that one.

So for all of you who hate the insurance companies, don't you have to ask yourself why they would want the Obama plan?

They must have figured they will make even more money off us with the Obama plan.

Progressive Thinker? Sounds more like stereotype-and-bash to me.

Progressive Thinker, you are right.

I've had song we used to sing in church going through my mind lately, only I've changed the words...

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me

when I was hungry you told me to go

when I needed health care you just shouted NO

GOOD LUCK entering into the home of my father...."

They are too big to fail!

how about this instead of getting rid of insurance companies we just require our state and federal regulators to actually get off of their asses and do the job they get paid to do by taxpayers.

The problem is not lack of regualtion the problem is the lack of enforcement of regulation. Why did this guy have to sue the company to get his reinstatement instead of being able to go to the insurance regulator and have the current regulations enforced by the lazy ass govt workers who are paid by taxpayers to protect the citizens.

Yes they were under investigations in 2007:

CBS' investigation of Assurant found a pattern of questionably denied claims and cancelled policies — and what a South Carolina judge called a culture of "secrecy, concealment … and shredded documents."

A video deposition from another court case describes what may have been cash incentives to the company’s medical director to deny claims after the fact.

Diane Winkowski, a former unit supervisor of Assurant, said she was part of a unit at Assurant that searched for reasons not to pay claims. She told us she quit because, she believed, many of the investigations were unfounded — and unjust.

skeptic - And all my tax money should go directly to whoever gets it (military, welfare, etc.)

None should go to Washington.

In fact, they should just close down D.C.

Really, cause I'm guessing that the Gov't aint gonna distribute ALL the money. (they keep 1/4 to 1/3 of all money sent in now. Yes, we pay $400 for $300 in welfare benefits.)

Don't hold your breath waiting for their comments, you'll asphyxiate.

Assurant did not use 'free market tactics' numbnuts, they broke the law, as was proven in court.

...though someone answered you, you are more then welcome to self-asphyxiate.

Yes and those laws are called regulation.

and those laws were able to be broken because the regulators that were supposed to enforce them weren't doing their jobs. this is what it boils down to is that the companies will get away with what they can to maximize their profits but the regulators are supposed to hold them in check with the regulations already in place.

This is the health care and insurance reform we need is the enforcement of current regulations not 3000 new pages of them that still wont get enforced!

usmcvet5711

You are correct about regulation. What many here can't get it through their heads is that Free Markets shouldn't mean anarchy. There needs to be regulation AND it needs to be enforced.

As far as health care goes, it isn't working in its current state and needs to be revamped. The first solution is always going to have problems and will have to be tweaked and adjusted. No one has the complete answer. We won’t know where it’s going to fail until we put it out there and see what happens. What is clear is that the system is collapsing and we need to do something. The price of inaction is too high.

Stally then lets start fixing it in the pits first before we saddle ourselves with all of the new crap entitlements.

Lets start by eliminating the fraud in the system which the CBO said would reap a 575 billion dollar savings. Then lets continue with the regulators actually enforcing regulation. Take this story for example. It took this 17 year old kid to expose the practices of this company but no where have the regulators stepped in with fines and penalties nor their own investigations to stop this. This company should have faced very stiff fines if not being closed down. Practices like this are already against the law but our lawmakers and enforcers continue timae and again to allow them to continue to operate with little or no fines and no backlash at all. This company should have been seriously fined, the CEO's imprisoned and the company shut down. If this had happened then others would not use this practice because of the danger to their company but our personal profit paid for congress and presidents will continue to allow these same practices as long as the money train continues.

Fix the problems in the current system first before creating an entirely new system that will suck just as bad. This story is a story of failed government regulation and enforcement far more than just dirty company practices.

USM do you have a link for the fraud savings amount? When I look I see that fraud is an 80 billion dollar a year problem.

In a truly "free marke," there is no law. I still can't believe that some people want to trust corporations to run health care.

Eric no I do not have a link having read it in several stories on MSNBC as some of cited savings that will help pay for the health care bill being touted now. Even if the savings in in the range of 80 billion dollars that is still 80 billion dollars that our government and regulators allow to happen every year right now. Fix that problem and you are half way to the figure to pay for the current bill right now. 80 billion in savings on fraud is 800 billion over the same 10 year stretch that this bill is covering.

Dave, corporations do not run health care they only state what they will pay for and what they will not pay for, they do not tell a doctor what they can and cannot do. That is up to the doctor and the patient. Insurance companies only say what they will pay for and what they wont pay for.

usmcvet5711

I'm not going to disagree with you because you're not wrong. The problem is you have an idea and I have an idea. We both are sort of right and sort of wrong. It's really hard to know exactly which theory is correct and which one isn't. We keep saying that unless we have the perfect solution we should do nothing. This is no longer an acceptable solution. There are a lot of things I don’t like about the current bill, but we’ve waited too long. We no longer have the luxury of whining about the other guys plan.

Then here is what i propose the govt should do.

Take the bill by each proposal. Pass only those that both parties agree on and can be passed and throw out the rest. Then fix the existing system so that it actually works and incorporate only those ideas that both groups can agree on. This could easily be hammered out as there are good proposals in the bill but there are also so many bad ones.

If I told you that you had to eat a pice of fruit that had both a bad side and a good side do you eat it all in the thought that if you are going to eat some you have to take it all or do you only eat the good side and throw the bad side away?I also am not disagreeing with you but I do firmly believe that we need to start over and come up with a truly bi-partisan solution that all sides can agree on. We are paying our representatives to do things for us that benefit all of us not just to do things so someone can make a notation in a history book somewhere.

I would like an honest bi-partisan bill as well, but it's not going to happen. Both parties are too entrenched in their own dogma to see the other point of view.

Using your analogy we are starving to death while we argue which side we should eat. If we don't act soon we'll die of starvation. There is a 50% chance that we'll bite into the bad fruit and have to spit it out. There is a 100% chance that if we don't bite into the fruit we will die of starvation.

Almost all Hospitals are for profit or non profit CORPORATIONS.

So I guess we won't have to pay for your healthcare since you don't trust CORPORATIONS.

you really both have opinions that are right, though I tend to lean more to your line of thinking USMC. Too much about the new HCR bill will allow the system to be bucked even further. Making it mandatory for people to buy insurance (or pay a tax which at 750 for an individual is only a few thousand less than the insurance) while making it impossible for insurance companies to pre-exist people isn't going to make people purchase insurance. Why would healthy people purchase insurance when they could pay a tax for far less money and if they get sick at that point purchase insurance? Stands to reason what will end up happening is instead of more insured there would be less. I pay 200 a month (employer provided benefits which costs the employer between 5-700 over what I pay a month) for my health benefits. When weighing the difference of 2400 annually or 750 obviously the latter looks more appealing to me. My doctor's visits would be discounted if I were paying in cash (common practice here). I go twice a year and at best would have to pay out of pocket 100 each time. That's still cheaper than paying the insurance. If I get sick then I'll go to the exchanges our wonderful government has set up and purchase insurance, get treated, when i'm better cancel and begin paying the tax again. That's just for a single person cost. Families doing this would save a lot more money.

I am assuming that is the pattern of behavior that will emerge, as I have considered what my options are as far as health insurance under this new system. The only problem with it is how will health insurance companies keep the doors open at all with only sick people purchasing plans? While healthy individuals opt out and pay a tax for the welfare class to get more Medicaid (which around here we only have 2 doctors that take that anyway and neither are accepting patients, not sure what getting Medicaid will accomplish when no one will treat you and Medicare is worse than that. Medicare without Medicaid or a supplement is a death knell).

I believe the new system will fail worse than the current one considering what the government is proposing, and the fact that so much of the public is anti-government today. HCR changes should ahve to stand on their own. Pre-existing ban should certainly be in there, but so should cost containment for the insurance premium's and hospital generated charges. Needless to say with what Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Med Equip, as well as the Unions and AARP are paying to get what they want it is never likely that a government run by so much greed will put forth a bill that actually benefits the people as well as healthcare providers.

Since at this stage of the game most of congress is on a spending spree they might as well scrap HCR all together and focus on something we can all agree on.....like our jobs currently in China and India.

You missed the best of the scam Nancy. The hospitals can buy a policy for any uninsured person comng into the ER. They can cancel the policy on discharge and most likely charge more to the insurnace than they paid for the policy.

They have to put a waiting period or something for pre-existing conditions, I wouldn't mind the insurance companies getting kicked a little for their abuses but we also don't want them out of business or raising the rates so high that everyone resorts to this trick.

Not a bad idea at all.

I love it.. I'm voting you "up" !!!!! (wish I could vote you up more than one time...)

Peace.

Rescission is part of the current bill. Here are the immediate benefits on passage:

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Great idea. Let's give the government more power, as they certainly handle that well.

I believe that is the point of the $10 million. Although, you may believe (and are probably right) that $10 million will do little to change their behavior, Those were obviously punitive damages not meant to rectify the initial condition that brought on the lawsuit. Plus, you idea would just cost us all even more money the way the IRS runs inefficiently. But, in theory, it's a great idea.

Actually I wonder if the money the insurance company saved could be considered ill gotten gains.

Sure, $10 million isn't much more than cost of business compared to how much Assurant made off this practice, BUT this is not an isolated case, as the article shows. Multiply that $10M times 100 cases (and apparently there are a LOT more) and it starts to look like serious money even to scumbag managers. Now that this case is won there's a whole lot of incentives for others to sue, and for former (or current) employees to rat out Assurant. I can see where a whole lot of people who lost coverage (assuming they are still alive, which isn't at all certain) are going to look into lawsuits, and they should. You do the wrong thing you're sometimes going to get caught. That's one of the truly great things about America. No amount of bribes from Assurant is going to make this go away.

Insurance companies are just legitimate organized crime bosses selling protection. Without it, the will bury you. With it, they charge you through the nose. If you use it, they will restrict it.

Legalized extortion and racketeering! This bill only gives them more customers and power.

jobless- wow, what you described sounds exactly like our government. And you want these two groups of crooks to work more closely together?

Guess again Martha!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004267.html

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09

martha get your opinions straight. The insurance companies give to both parties and in some cases more to the democratic party candidates than republicans. Why would the insurance companies fight this bill as this bill is a give away to them. Under this bill 30 million new customers will be required to purchase insurance with no restrictions on what those insurance premiums will be. There are no cost containment measures in the senate bill which will hold down costs. In fact many of the provisions that are touted as the best just give the insurance companies more excuses to raise premiums across the board.

Health Care reform would have to actually involve and address the real costs of insurance premium hikes and that is what health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies and others charge that raises those costs.

The simple solution is that if you dont like health insurance companies then right now it is your legal and constitutional right to not use them at all. All you have to do is pay for all of your own medical out of your pocket yourself and you cut the middle man right out. When you do this then you will see where the real costs of expensive medical care comes from.

Here are amounts given to both parties:

American Medical Assn
$26,307,905
39% to Dems and
60% to Republicans.

Pfizer Inc
$18,334,470
29%to Dems and
70% to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Okay Eric so you picked out two that support your case here is one for you.

Presidential campaign

Barak Obama

Lawyers - 43 million plus

Health care Professionals - 11 million plus

Hospitals - 3.3 million plus

John McCain

Lawyers - 10 million

Health Professionals - 5.2 million

Insurance (all types) - 2.4 million

Much Much more to the Democrats than to Republicans.

Which only goes to prove you did not read my post and only took those sections and that data that only pertain to your point. A very biased view again.

Gee, Reagan sure sounds like a meanie. Wasn't GW the president who gave the most money towards Africa and AIDS research?

K

I'm sorry I wasn't a little clearer, I was being sarcastic. I am very pro-reform.

President Bush did step up and deliver on AIDS research and availability of treatment for Africans. Bravo President Bush.

President Obama would like to further the cause of healthcare for all.

Bravo President Obama.

Dittos, clarke

Dear K - if you spend any time at all on the Vine, you'd know Clark was putting his tongue so far into his cheek, he almost ate his own teeth. I got knocked off the vine for a day for a similar attempt at humor - it's hard to pull off!

Peace...

Hi SuezQ - sure, Bush gave lots of AIDS money to Africa - but restricted any funds to organizations that included birth control or condoms in their programs. So, no condoms, = more AIDS, more HIV. Give with one hand, take away with the other. Amazing grace...

Peace...

You libs need to calm yourselves.

According to this article Bush's program saved 1.2 million lives in Africa over 4 years, and his program went mostly to TREAT people with AIDS, and isn't that what is most important?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/145376.php

But nice try - you sure sounded like you were right.

Hi Paul: I'd like to see the figures on how many new cases of AIDS & HIV came about due to a lack of access to condoms and birth control information - but I don't think they track those numbers. I'll check out that article you posted later today. You are perfectly right that the US aid for treatment was the right thing to do. ... thanks!

Peace

This same old tired lie being used once again. The repubs need to take a couple of courses on being original.

Yes, it will Tom. We''ll get past it though. Once Obama is kicked out, I'm sure we'll get someone who can lead this country back to being America again.

Sue

We will never be more America than the day when all Americans have good access to good medical care.

In your dreams Clarke. Let's just wait and see how this all plays out once they vote without voting first, shall we?

Funny how Republican patriotism flies out the window once a Democrat is in office. Remember the mantra that Reagan "made us proud again" -i.e. they weren't proud of their country before Jan 20, 1981. Now we have people like Suz65 who think it won't be America again until the black man leaves office.

BTW Tom -don't forget the "death panels" and the "rationing of health care" that this bill will give us - you can't just give us part of the BS -we want it all!

RDH I am not a Republican, I served my country so I have no guilt in utilizing my fredom of speech, and this bill will increase my costs for several years before any benefit to anyone kicks in.

I have a job and I have health insurance. I have worked hard and earned everything I have!

My insurance is expensive and my doctor charges too much.

The problem is this bill does not and will not fix the issue of the cost of medical care.

Sue

Pray God that this in in everyman's dream.

And all the current plan will do is to reduce the number of people!

The bill saves 118 billion over 10 years and insures 30 million more americans.

Eric - you can't seriously believe those numbers. When Medicare was created they estimated a little low too - they missed the cost side by about 900%.

The original annual cost estimate was $3 billion annually, with an estimated cost by 1990 of $12 billion. The actual cost by 1990 was $109 billion. Last year the estimated cost was what, $599 billion?

And you want to trust these idiots with the math?

Saves $118 billion over 10 years - seriously, your weatherman is more accurate.

maybe I should have said the existing plan.

And Paul, what was the cost in lives before Medicare?

Why did we need Medicare in the first place if the business could solve this problem for us? Corporations have had their shot at running health care and they blew it.

Gregorovich - you must be right. My local high school paper just got a memo from the white house, where Obama's robots can see everything you and we are doing. Be very afraid! They've been told to whitewash the Dems and push their legislative agenda. They are EVERYWHERE!!!!

lol & peace.

Sinclair insurance companies have absolutely nothign to do with tort reform. Tort reform is about a doctor making a mistake and a person sueing them for outrageous sums of money of which more than half goes to the bloodsucking lawyers.

The insurance companies will get paid no matter if a doctor does a good job or a bad job. See this is the kind os misinformation that uninformed people spout whne they don't understand what they are talking about.

The dems do not want tort reform because they lawyers whos support them are against it because it will directly impact their profits as an industry.

Insurance companies do not decide your health decisions you and your doctor do!! Insurance companies only decide what they will or will not pay for. If the insurance company decides it will not pay for a procedure and your doctor will not then do the procedure which may save you then the doctor is to blame not the insurance company. If the insurance company decided not to pay then the doctor should have come to you and asked you if you want it done or not and how it will be paid for. If you then decide not to have the procedure because you do not want to pay for it then it is your fault for the outcome.

See this in the big people world is called personal responsibility.

Hate to break it to you, but the lawyers are not to blame. Perhaps you should research "tort reform" before you decide to post. Insurance Companies DO decide what premiums to charge and which procedures and expenses to cover. They also decide who not to cover. The doctor is paying his insurance, and the patient is paying his premium, the flaw here is the insurance company. The doctor decides what is the best way to treat a patient, not some insurance adjustor. He is THE DOCTOR not the insurance company. A doctor should not have to work for free to do his job either, he spent a lot of money and time on education to even qualify for that job (same goes for nurses and staff). This also applies to the attorney helping vicitms of malpractice. Its so easy to place blame on doctors and lawyers when you have no idea of what you are talking about. Eveyone has responsibilty, minus banks, Wall Street, AIG, and various other insurers (according to current policy).

sorry Longhorn but I hate to break it to you but when you talk TORT reform you are talking about malpractice cases between a doctor and his patient period.

Tort reform deal with the idea of limiting the amount that can be awarded to a person in the event of a case of malpractice. In this type of case the person sues the doctor to prove the malpractice happened and then the courts award that person an amount they deem appropriate depending upon what the lawyer asked for. Thsi also includes any fees that are associated with the case.

Now the Doctor pays and insurance company not to protect him from the malpractice suit but to pay in the event he is sued and the claimant wins his case. The insuracne company then pays the courts the specified fee and then raises the rates to the doctor and other in the field to recoup the money lost.

Now listen carefully, The INSURANCE COMPANIES cannot by law tell a doctor he cannot perform any thing that doctor wants to do. The INSURANCE COMPANIES can only tell a medical provider that they will or will not pay for the procedure he wants to do. It is then up to the DOCTOR to decide what course of action he will do. In many cases the doctor will only do those procedures an insurance company will pay for because then he fears not getting paid for his services.

I NEVER said a doctor should work for free and I NEVER said a bloodsucking attorney should work for free either. What I did say is that TORT Reform does not affect an insurance company except it would allow them to pay lower amounts and then would allow them to drop premium prices.

TORT Reform is between a doctor, the lawyers and the courts the insurance company only pays the bills. GET IT RIGHT an insurance company can NEVER EVER deny ANY type of MEDICAL TREATMENT, all they can do is refuse to pay for it and the decisiono is still in the doctors hand. If insurance won't pay for it and the patient won't pay for it then it is the patient that is expecting the doctor to work for free. All doctors and health care providers will work out payment plans for medical treatment.

YES EVERYBODY has a responsibility and that includes LAWYERS, DOCTORS, INSURANCE COMPANIES and the PERSON themselves. You sir have no idea what you are talking about and need to not fall into the trap that all insurance companies are automatically everything to blame for the costs of healthcare.

When it comes to tort reform yes lawyers have a very large portion of the blame when they charge so much money to do a case, constantly chase ambulances to sue everybody for the slightest thing and seek outrageous awards for everything. Some things deserve large compensation but 10 million dollars in addition to restoring his coverage is a bit much.

What should have occured is that the person should have been compensated for the costs of all of his uncovered treatments, his lawyer costs at a reasonable rate, full reinstatement of his policy and reimbursement for any lost expenses.

Then the government should have fined them 20 million in fines, recinded their license for one year, brought criminal charges against the CEO, the CFO and the Head of the Department and required that company at their expense to find and allocate new policies for their entire client base at the company's expense.

Thsi is what should have been done but our paid for government will never have the balls to do it!

Significant again your ignorance plays out when you spout the party line.

The war powers act actually limited the powers of the president and put more power into congress to control the power that the president has over the military. Under the war powers act a president can only send troops with the authorization of congress or if the US is under attack or directly threatened. And then those troops can only stay for 60 days with a withdrawal time frame within 30 days unles congress specifically authorizes them to stay longer. so your premise is a serious fail try research sometime.

The patriot act was initially only allowed the wiretapping and seizing of property if there was a proven connection between a person in the continental US conversing with someone outside the US. The obama administration recently not only reauthorized the act but also broadened its powers to allow for acts between people wholly located within the US.

NAFTA could easily have been vetoed by Clinton as congress would have required a 2/3 majority to override it and at no time during his presidency did the republicans have a veto proof senate. This would mean that there were democrats also involved if the overturning of the veto threat was real. Reguardless if Clinton had vetoed it then he would not have to share the blame. So again serious fail.

And finally the balanced budget act of 1997 could also have been vetoed by Clinton and would not have been able to be overturned so again Democrats share the blame in this one.

If this bill goes through then just the fact that the government is forcing US citizens to purchase a product from a private company or face unconstitutional taxation in the guise of penalties then the US will open the doors to economic and government slavery and a veritable Trampling of everyone's Constitutional Rights.

Well said usmcvet - and to add one thing, if this bill was so great, why is the President, Pelosi and Reid having to bribe their own party members to vote for it?

Why the Lousiana Purchase? The Cornhusker payoff, the Florida ripoff?

You can hate the right all you want, both parties have created a disaster of a federal bureaucracy, and if you want these idiots in charge of anything you are not only misinformed, you are not well.

Including Supreme Court justices!

Especially Supreme Court justices.

yeah, after all we don't need no stinkin' Constitution.

What do you think made America great in the first place?

Allan you have the cart before the horse and you are blaming the worng people for the cost of healthcare.

The insurance companies do not tell the doctors what they will charge they tell them what they will pay. Lets go back to your example:

In Japan an MRI costs $98.00 but in the US an MRI costs $1500.00, now why is this?

It is not because the insurance company told the doctors to charge them that amount it is because the doctors CHOOSE to charge that amount!! The insurance companies do no want to pay out and I am sure would be more than happy to cover an MRI for $98 as that would actually save them $1402.00 for every MRI which would in turn create huge savings.

Blame the right people for the stupid costs of medical care in the US and those people are the health care providers, the pharmaceutical companies, the medical device and supplies people, the illegal aliens who use our services and do not pay and lastly all of those people who use medical services and then skip out on the bill without paying thereby shifting the charges they incurred to those of us who actually do pay our medical bills.

An insurance company only provides a service and if you do not like it then just dont use them!

I agree with you: the practices of providers, pharmaceutical companies, medical supplies, etc. AND the insurance companies, they ALL contribute to our huge healthcare expenditure, more than twice per capita of the next highest among all advanced countries. And the cost of healthcare keeps going up year in, year out, well above CPI and wage growth in America. The illegal alien issue permeates every aspect of our society and needs to be dealt with separately - the healthcare bill explicitly will not cover non-citizens. I worked for a healthcare insurer, an HMO, for 7 years and I absolutely saw the waste, abuse, and in some instances, outright fraud, they are part of the problem in our healthcare spending.

Today healthcare spending is one-sixth of our economy, what will it be tomorrow? It is unsustainable if we do nothing. The time is now for reform and this is a first step. Look at Medicare and Social Security, do they not provide a minimum sense of "old age" security, does anyone want to roll back these programs?

Hang on a minute. With the government involved with Medicare and Medicaid, you have below-cost reimbursement for many services. Doctors, hospitals and everyone else has to over-charge all of us paying customers to cover the millions receiving the subsidized healthcare that is again subsidized when we pay our bill.

I'm not saying hospitals don't need reform, they surely do - from the code language to the $100 toothbrushes.

One fundamental problem though is that we need to eliminate insurance from the picture, and get government out as well. The idea of private non-profits makes sense. Of course it still requires constant audit, as no one seems particularly trustworthy now a days.

Correct. The main reason health care is so expensive is because we have hospitals that charge 20 dollars for an aspirin, and 100 dollars for a bandage. They milk the insurance companies and those without insurance suffer the most. Maybe health care reform should be extended to those that practice medicine. God forbid a doctor has to downgrade from a Mercedes to a Lexus.

Exactly Super T. Not that insurance companies don't deserve the ire they are receiving - they do. However, we only point the finger at them because we pay them directly. They wouldn't charge as much if medical treatments charged by doctors, hospitals, and drug makers weren't so inflated.

Actually insurance is what has allowed the doctors and hospitals to charge so much. If insurance didn't exist they would have to charge prices that people could afford to pay.

There is one piece of your argument on the MRI that is missing. First of all I don't know where in the country you can get an MRI of anything for 1500 (if you can pat yourself on the back and count yourself lucky). Most of them are well over 3-4000, if you receive it through an ER visit you can double that. The piece that is missing though is the cost of the machine (which factors into what the hospital or service provider charges for the test). One brand new machine can run anywhere from 1.5 million to 10 million depending on various factors of the machine. There are 2 hospitals in the county I live in. If each of them only purchased one machine the waiting list would be years for most of the county residents (essentially by the time you could get it, you'd either be dead or wouldn't really need it....like Canada). CT machines and x-ray machines are not much better, then get into the various procedures whether it be cardiology, neurosurgery or any other speciality practices and the equipment used for them can be just as up-to-date and outrageously priced.

You neglected to mention the equipment manufacturers in driving up the costs. One of the hospitals here has 6 MRI machines. Even if they got them on the cheap (which they did not, some of them are speciality open MRI's and some have a larger area tube than normal) it would still be at least 10 million. Perhaps part of the reason MRI's are cheaper in Japan is they have MRI factories where citizens are paid 50 dollars a week to build those machines. Here a factory like that would be unionized driving the cost of labor to almost that per hour. and an MRI maintenance man ain't cheap.

Insurance companies, pharmacies and medical equipment companies, hospitals as well as at times health care providers (having to compensate for the rises in tuition and cost of specializing) in their own way add to the cost of any given tests or procedures. The HCR bill doesn't address any of those issues, and to be true reform it would have to address all of them as well as the abuses of the welfare system. There are too many people (like the woman the president was parading around) who work for cash sometimes for more or less than minimum wage and declare a small enough wage to qualify for government benefits. Obviously if you have been paying a mortgage and property taxes it stands to reason you made more than 6000 annually, as well as too many people procreating for the sole purpose of government subsidies.

Health Care Reform doesn't mean a new system with worse problems. It means, and the voters should be demanding, that congress Start with one problem in the current system and fix it. Quit spending a year and a half on a boondoggle. Imagine how many of these issues could have already been passed and dealt with if they had taken a single issue stands on it's own approach.

Not sure why my name is up there, I agree with you 100%.

Dont agree too quickly. Want you seem to want is called "Comunism." I know it looks good on paper but twenty years ago you would have to wait in line for hours to buy a loaf of bread in the soviet union.

Oh really? Got everything all packaged neatly into little boxes of definitions do you?

Good luck growing.

Profit has no place in healthcare. Sorry.

Capitalism is fine as long as there is some government regulation, but everytime Dems try to fix a problem with it the Republican party manipulates other bible toting clowns through the fear that we might become like Nazi Germany.

Because of the "golden rule".

Those with the gold make the rules.

Only gay males get HIV?

Really Comedian so you know the political affiliation of this particular CEO? You are saying that just because he is a CEO he is automatically a Republican, wow how absolutley ignorant can you get?

Is the practice wrong, I agree with that absolutely. The customer has paid for a product and after paying contracted a condition, which the story forgets to specify how he contracted it, and as such should be covered, whcih after the court case he now is.

This is a textbook case of the industry regulators not doing their jobs and reigning in the practices of this company. This is also a prime example of the failure of government as this company after being exposed like this is still allowed to operate and has faced no regulatory fines for violating the law.

It is known that industry will try to get away with everything to turn a profit and it is governments jobs to ensire that those same practices do not harm its citizens only. This is clearly a case where the government has failed to do its job and is continuing to fail on a daily basis.

And you want to give them more control of this before they have bothered to fix the problems already glaringly evident?

Comedian: The ceo also supports universal healthcare so that he and his greedy company will make even more money off of the NEW, CORRUPT system under Obamacare. Considering the current, despicable scenario of lies and deceit in DC, start over is exactly the right thing to do. I guess that your post was part of the comedy act. Titter titter.

Waterdog, "starting Over" is republican-speak for "do nothing".

usmcvet, part of the problem is Insurance is now regulated by 50 different states. That means you cannot buy across state lines. It means a policy sold in New Jersey meets New Jersey standards but might not meet Florida's standards. South Carolina can revoke Fortis's license to do business n SOuth Carolina but it can continue to target HIV policy holders in other states where it operates.

We need a federal system so we can regulate national companies nationally. A side benefit would be allowing states to sell across state lines. That would help bring prices down

and comedian you state in the same post that starting over is republican speak for do nothing when the republicans proposed the very idea of allowing competition over state lines and a body of regulations that would go across all states but the democrats threw this idea right out the door.

Get off of your political ideological talking point bandwagon and look at the real issue. Starting over means just that. Take the ideas that both parties agree on and push those though and then work out how to tackle the rest.

I wholly agree that competition across state lines would bring down costs but this is only one area to allow the market to decrease costs. Another way would be to take out their anti-trust exemption status which was another republican idea that was trashed in the name if partisan politics.

Start over is exactly what they need to do only this time actually include both parties instead of the democrats standing on their pulpit screaming we won over and over again like petulant children. The democrats have stated over and over again that it will be their way or no way and when you start negotiations on that stance you have already lost it all.

Well said!