Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, September 23, 2010 07:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 627
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Assholes...

Quote:
Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation's new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

I'm sure they are feverishly gathered in some dark room trying to figure out how to get around every provision intended to curb their excess greed.

Screw 'em... one and all...

Did you hear Huckabee's "corollary" to pre-existing conditions?

Quote:
"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."

Doesn't get much more assinine than that!

The actual corollary would be to try and insure your kid after he DIED...insurance for a totalled house or car is money to build or buy a new one...insurance money for a dead child to replace it? Duh...

Amazing.

The one thing that wasn't made clear when this was reported is that it's only for "child-only" insurance, so at least kids in family insurance won't suffer for it. That makes quite a difference, but the MSM doesn't seem interested in mentioning that.

The thing is, it wouldn't be a problem if the insurance companies weren't such bastards about "pre-existing conditions", having extended the definition to babies who are too fat, too skinny, or women who've had previous, perfectly-good pregnancies!

Of course, if insurance companies weren't such greedy bastards in the first place, health-care reform would never have been necessary...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:17 AM

MINCINGBEAST

I take the subject of pre-existing conditions very seriously, for dreary personal reasons that I will never cop to. A better corollary would be buying a home and then discovering that it is in a flood plain, only to be told by the insurance company that they won't sell you flood insurance.

Anyway, if insurance companies were not "greedy bastards" there would be no such thing as insurance. They exist to make money by providing a service, and sometimes they make decisions related to money. Sometimes these decisions are damnable. Refusing to sell someone insurance outright based on their medical history is such a decision, though higher payments are appropriate.

Come to think of it, in the future, insurance companies will not make money by providing a service, but rather health care will be something like a public utility that everyone is entitled to. I'm ambivalent about it, but won't waste any sympathy on the insurers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:31 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Big difference between being in busines to make profit and putting EXHORBIDANT profit, high CEO pay, bonuses, etc., in front of any responsible business practices...and they have and do.

I hope the day comes when we get a public option or (gasp!) socialized medicine. For all I know what will come tumbling down upon me for saying so, I don't give a shit--people should have the right to affordable healthcare, somehow.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:06 AM

MINCINGBEAST

I don't know if I can drawn the line between profit and exorbitant profit, and I wouldn't trust the government to make that distinction any more than I'd trust a CEO.

Everyone ought to have access to health care, but I question the wisdom of framing it as a "right." Sort of debases the concept of a "right."

A conservatard in my office claims that this is the natural progression of Obamacare, which was designed to kill private insurance thereby making "the guv'mint" the defacto provider of all health services, and destroying western civilization. We shall see, but I suspect he is wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I KNOW he's wrong. For one thing, even if we had the wished-for public option, there would be those with enough money to buy private healthcare which would be exhorbidantly expensive but probably have access to all kinds of special treatments that were better than public healthcare...if nothing more than fancy private rooms (!). Private healthcare will always be with us, we're a consumer society.

I consider "exhorbidant" profits as when a company wants so much profit that it cuts corners to a huge extent and comes up with rules which endanger people's lives, just to get a bit MORE profit when it is already profiting hugely. Health insurance companies obviously aren't the only ones who fit that bill!

Are you aware that Social Security and Medicare cost less to administrate than they would if they were private? They're both actually pretty damned efficient in their ways, and the TPers want to do away with both. THEY, of course, have the money to be taken care of in their old age, but if people had to set aside enough to care for themsleves (like me), they'd be "living out of cardboard boxes and sick as dogs" in their old age.

There needs to be something in between. We SHOULD have evolved by this time past letting the elderly and sick live like animals without any safety net at all, dropping behind in the desert to die when they can't keep up, as they did in Afghanistan. Is that truly what you're proposing? Because if there was no SSI, no Medicare, that's pretty much the alternative.

"Privatizing" either puts people at the mercy of the stock market...and we know how well THAT's turned out for many (!)...and requires that they have both the good sense and the wherewithall to invest their money.

I'd love to see a viable alternative to both, but so far all I've seen the Repubs put forth are concepts that are essentially "I got mine, fuck you".

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:17 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It seems like the Insurance companies are hard at work, marginalizing their usefulness to society.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE