Quote:
Original post by Eelco
Termination of contracts is a subtle issue though. An insurance is not an insurance if it is at a variable rate, and an insurance is not an insurance if its obligations can be spread over an extended periods of time, yet it has the freedom to unilaterally violate your contract in the meanwhile.
Nobody has yet given examples of that systematically happening, but if it would, that would be bad indeed.
Examples could be found in many of the articles I've linked to, for example, in the interview with Wendell Potter and the discussion over medical loss ratios. Wendell Potter was the spokesman for Cigna during the scandal over the denial that cost Nataline Sarkisyan her life. That episode contributed to Potter's resignation and subsequent turn as whistleblower. I didn't highlight the portions of the articles pertaining to systematic denials of care because that wasn't the issue I was addressing at the time. But they are there if you only bothered to read. For example, in the last link I posted:
Quote:
...
Opponents of reform often seem to skip right past any problems with the current system -- but it's rife with them. A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper). There is no national database of insurance claim denials, though, because private insurance companies aren't required to disclose such stats. Meanwhile, a House Energy and Commerce Committee report in June found that just three insurance companies kicked at least 20,000 people off their rolls between 2003 and 2007 for such reasons as typos on their application paperwork, a preexisting condition or a family member's medical history. People who buy insurance under individual policies, about 6 percent of adults, may be especially vulnerable, but the 63 percent of adults covered by employer-provided insurance aren't immune to difficulty.
...
That article goes on to detail specific individuals who were denied care for frivolous reasons.
Quote:
Original post by Eelco
Medical insurance is essentially a contract for life. Dont expect to be able to quit one fixed-rate program and join another when you are 60. I wouldnt offer you such a deal, and noone but santaclaus would.
A contract for life? Maybe in your country, where health insurance is obligatory (
Health care in the Netherlands), but here in the US, people lose their health insurance all the time and are forced to search for new coverage. For example when the company they work for downsizes and workers in their 50's find themselves out of work and without insurance.
Quote:
Original post by Eelco
One may argue in how far this leaves room for any genuine market in health-insurance to begin with: a decent argument in favor of a single-payer system, which noone seems to have bothered to articulate in their profit-frenzy.
Earlier in this thread I posted a link to an analysis from 1963 demonstrating that health insurance markets inevitably lead to denials of care. I also posted a link to a more recent study conducted on behalf of the California Nurses Association demonstrating the positive economic impacts of a single payer system. What no one seems to have bothered to articulate in their profit frenzy is just the opposite. That is, where is the argument that the private health insurance system is working and should remain as is? Again, I have to wonder if you're willfully blind or if it's something else.
Quote:
Original post by Eelco
Getting the US federal government involved with it, is something I wouldnt wish on my worst enemy though. If america needs universal healthcare so badly, why do hardly any states enact it?
Health insurance lobbyists operate at the state level too. They have their friends in state Legislatures just as they do in Congress. Governors too. For example, here in California, the Legislature passed single payer health care in 2006 and 2008 only to meet a veto from Gov. Schwarzenegger. (
Healthcare Reform: Single Payer and the Public Option,
Schwarzenegger vetoes universal health care). Schwarzenegger proposed his own version of single payer but the Legislature rejected it. He responded by vetoing the version passed by the Legislature. The Sacramento Bee published a nice graphic comparing the two proposals when they were both on the table, but I couldn't find it. At any rate, that article about Schwarzenegger's veto also provides an example of health insurance companies systematically denying coverage.
Quote:
...
The governor also vetoed one of the legislative session's most contentious proposals, Assembly Bill 1945 by Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate.
The bill would have banned insurance companies from canceling policies retroactively except under certain conditions, such as when a person intentionally misleads an insurer about his or her health history when applying for coverage.
Five insurers have been fined a combined $15 million in the last couple of years for rescinding the health insurance of more than 3,300 people.
De La Torre said his bill would have prevented health insurers from canceling sick patients' coverage for innocent omissions on their insurance application.
...
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
