HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"

The majority of Americans not only disapprove of current health care plans, they strongly disapprove of them. The more Obama talks, the more the polls supporting Obamacare drop. He's the best thing going for the Republicans since Ronald Reagan.

Nothing obama says has any meaning if he can't be trusted.

Watch this video. You’ll see obama lie like a dog in his very own words.

http://www.breitbart.tv/naked-emperor-news-obamas-mother-of-all-political-lies-and-the-town-hall-mayhem-it-caused/comment-page-1/#comment-2529261

People need to wake up and see this lying fraud for who he is, an America hating, Saudi King bowing, dictator loving, former cocaine addict, racist Kenyan usurper dirt-bag Chicago thug!

Well, we wouldn't want the "socialists" to threaten the health insurers profits. After all, they're way more important for our country than the poor or those with pre-existing conditions who are lazy and only want to dip into the pockets of us who can afford to pay.

These are probably not "people of faith" anyway or they wouldn't have these pre-existing conditions or, er, uh, get pregnant with twins. Twins are the anti-Christ. Palin's witchdoctor and the bible tells us so.

Is this any surprise? The insurance companies are out to fulfill an ethical obligation of "fiduciary responsibility" to their shareholders, which means reducing costs and producing more and more profit.

Fiduciary responsibility, in US practice, trumps any relationship to a client/customer and allows for harming the client. The US is morally impaired.

Are Conservatives always healthy and never get sick? Do insurance companies only revoke health insurance coverage from Democrats and Liberals? If the answer is "no" and we can certainly be sure of that then what is the logic for those people screaming about socialism and big government to want to protect the monopoly of the insurance industrial complex?

You have to be either getting rich by money from the insurance companies, ...., or a total duped idiot to behave so irrationally and refuse what is good for your family and community.

Just for the record, most of the people insured under group coverage purchased by their employers', don't have to worry about pre-existing condition limitations or recession. These limitations are part of the individual and "baby group" markets (<10 employees). Wellpoint and other BX/BS plans write much of this coverage. Shouldn't "reform" be devoted to this sub-segment of the market and leave the rest of us alone?

This is not a uncommon practice for insurance companies. They have used this tactic for years. Regulate the insurance companies and you will see a change in healthcare. An insurance company should never dictate the healthcare of a patient however this has also been the situation for years.

While Employee sponsored health care plans generally protect an individual from the preexisting exemption clause when was the last time you were afforded the luxury of "choosing your Health care provider?" While my portion of premiums have doubled, co pays have actually tripled and my doctor prescribed prescriptions have been denied along with my out-of-pocket deductibles for my choice of an "out of network" physician I have had for life leave me struggling to pay for my free employee health coverage. But I suck it up as I send money to a third party company to pay my medical bills for me while they skim their profits off the top. Wow, maybe we should start buying groceries this way and when we get to the check-out they can deny us fruit juice because we are allergic to Milk!

It's nice to see all of these very professional looking pro-status-quo, anti-"Obamacare" comments supporting the insurance industry. It's nice to know that my insurance dollars are being used to pay for people to scan the newspapers and blogs and speak up for the industry when necessary. These spammers and their directors are really earning the millions of dollars a week that we are paying them thru our insurance premiums.

Give yourself a big fat million dollar bonus, health care executives! You deserve it!

The truth is, long before private health insurers rescind policies outright, first they single out and rate up the "losers" until they drop, so most people who become sick "choose" to drop their health insurance coverage before it ever drops them.

Obviously you dweebs have been lucky enough to have never been ill! I was lucky too, healthy, made lots of money, had tons of insurance, until 3 yrs ago when I got colon cancer. It's gone now, and so is my job and my insurance, my retirement, my house. The employers and the insurance companies care about NOTHING but money and they need to be reigned in!! You think just because you have insurance at this moment that you don't 'need' reform? Think again! In one day your entire life can change. I now have no job, no money left, no retirement savings left, no car, no house, NOTHING! Where is all the freakin money I paid in taxes, social security and Medicare for the past 40 years?? Because I am not getting one penny! And I could not get insurance now even if I had a thousand dollars a month because I'm uninsurable, event hough I'm cured!! Just WAIT--your time will come!! You WILL be sorry you did not support healthcare for everyone! By the way, where I worked, ALL the women over 40 were 'laid off' a.k.a. women have those 'female problems' when they get old and they actually have to use their insurance so bye-bye women! WHO'S NEXT? Could be YOU!

Most Americans want a government option. Those who want to continue coverage with the same health insurance industry that has a death grip on this country and spends 1.4 million a day to maintain it, go right ahead.

But be aware of these facts: during 2000-2007, the ten largest health insurance companies increased their profits 428%: from 2.4 billion to 12.9 billion! Despite this, the number of uninsured rose 19%, from 38.4 million to 45.7 million. Health insurance CEO's earned $11.9 million. The CEO of Cigna made $25.8 million in 2007!!

Since '93, the amount we’re paying for health insurance premiums increased steadily. Also in '93, the percentage of those premiums spent on health care was 95%. Now, it's 80%! They pay fewer claims and kick sick people off their rolls, while reaping obscene profits. Does this sound like the kind of 'corporation' we want to continue supporting and investing in?

The health insurance industry is behind the town hall disruptions in our democratic process. They don't want you to know the facts.

"If you think education is expensive you should try ignorance."

My insurance will go up $3500 this October Im paying more than 20% for health care for a basically healthy family. Insanity is doing the same thing when it does not work.My agent said Anthem and its $55 mil CEO is the only show in town.Im ready for the goverment to step in and give some competition. Our medical system sucks big time and needs overhauling . It is a system built on greed and elitism and needs change!

stevenb777..you shop around finding like minded "haters" to correlate your beliefs and back up your nutty ideas....you won't do any real research, no one is listening to you, except other xenophobes, misogynists and Nazi sympathizers..get lost..there are plenty of other sites that you can haunt with your anti-American hatred..sites that agree with your particular form of psychosis.....you don't give a rat's a** about America or its citizens..you are a scared little bully, you only have hate, you refuse to let facts get in the way of your hatred, trying to defeat our Democracy...(if you really want a corporate run government then you should have been born in Italy or Germany around the 1930's, not in this country, or maybe you were born in 1930's Italy/Germany?)...you do not belong in this country..your type are fast wearing out your welcome here

If health care reform fails the insurance companies will have a free hand to do whatever they want to policy holders. If you think they get away with murder now just wait till there is no health care reform. It is frightening to think about it!

Health insurers dictate their terms to patients because they have a monopoly. Introducing competition in that market would greatly improve the situation (better and more choices, lower prices, less refusal to ensure).

It's amazing to me that the people who always scream "free markets", "free markets", are now huffing and puffing because the administration wants to lessen the monopoly grip of the insurers on their market by introducing some competition!

Go take Economics 101! This is a nation of uneducated, gullible, paranoid, morons!

The government bureaucrat may not care about you, but an insurance bureaucrat is worse. He cares in that he might make more money for his company by denying your claim. At two different times, doctors have changed their diagnoses on me from what I really had to something my insurance was willing to cover. This is why I want health care reform.

The government bureaucrat may not care about you, but an insurance bureaucrat is worse. He cares in that he might make more money for his company by denying your claim. At two different times, doctors have changed their diagnoses on me from what I really had to something my insurance was willing to cover. This is why I want health care reform.

Gee, I was under the impression the Federal government regulated employer insurance. Yup, I just checked they do.

Perhas HHS should check the current Public Health Act, it has provisions covering when insurance can reject on the basis of pre-existing conditions and also covers recissions.

If HHS is concerned then HHS should ask Congress to change those provisions rather then forcing all the people in the US to put up with the changes to their health care in the bill.

The HHS could also ask the DOJ to enforce the law.
If it is not group plans, and is regulated by the states instead. Then HHS can still add it in and let states go above it. Many states already have regulations prohibiting such things though.

Perhaps HHS is confused on the law, or perhaps they are just looking to scare people into supporting the bill.

If they revoke benefits more than twice then the corporation is a criminal enterprise. Kind of like a privateer that turned to piracy. Revoke their charter, seize their assets and shoot the CEO in the back of the head. Like they do in China.

I'm so tired of hearing people call this bill "Obamacare". Insurance and Healthcare Reform is "We the Peoplecare". While we watch 'majority-rules' Democracy at it's best (The majority of us did vote for Obama for a reason, you know), we sit and listen to the minority whine and cry about it.
So many of us can relate one Insurance horror story after another, is it any surprise that President Obama was sent to Washington with a MANDATE for REAL change? Not enough focus is being put on who made this whole mess to begin with. De-regulation in every part of our financial lives and exorbidant tax cuts for the wealthiest (Individuals and companies) put us here...Government's constant 'raiding' Medicare, not providing healthcare, is what's destroying Medicare. (As ignorant as it sounded at the time, Mr. Gore's 'lock-box' doesn't sound like such a bad idea, now.)
The 'minority' had to live with too many years of Republican inefficient management policies, so, now that we have finally been 'counted' and become the true majority, watch us fix this mess again. It always takes a Democrat to fix years of Republican abuse and misuse of Government.
Sandi

Wow, why am I NOT surprised by this. Thats what insurance companies do best.

RT
www.anon-web-tools.net.tc

Health insurers dictate their terms to patients because they have a monopoly. Introducing competition in that market would greatly improve the situation (better and more choices, lower prices, less refusal to ensure).

It's amazing to me that the people who always scream "free markets", "free markets", are now huffing and puffing because the administration wants to lessen the monopoly grip of the insurers on their market by introducing some competition!

Go take Economics 101! This is a nation of uneducated, gullible, paranoid, morons!

Posted by: Gatsby10 | August 12, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------

maybe YOU should re-take that Econ class. Monopoly is ONE PLAYER IN A MARKET, say like Medicare, single payer. There is NO STATE where any insurer has 100% market share, not even close.

There are 1500 insurers across the country. Its amazing how liberals complain that there are so many insurers that complicate the system and yet they also try to say there are monopolies. Which is it??? You can't have BOTH.

Same argument goes to pre-existing conditions. Either insurers are DENYING EVERY CLAIM or we're paying too much. You can't have both. Studies show that insurers pay about 95-96% of claims without issue of recision, pre-existing condition etc. yet the FAR LEFT always screams these examples out when looking to destroy the current system. I'd really rather you increase that 95-96% number to 100% as opposed to destroying the system that 75+% of the population is happy with.

Here are some specifics about health care contributions to Senators:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): $7,504,867
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): $7,341,399
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): $2,149,503
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): $1,795,949
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): $1,743,835
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT): $1,685,890
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC): $1,350,454
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): $1,346,574
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): $1,321,457
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA): $1,160,826
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): $1,081,378
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): $ 999,611
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): $ 994,699
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): $ 980,417
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA): $ 935,711
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): $ 919,793
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): $ 896,067
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow (D-MI): $ 827,294
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD): $ 797,185
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $ 788,650
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA, 6th): $2,090,127
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ, 6th): $1,627,024
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX, 6th): $1,518,285
Rep. John Gingrey (R-GA, 11th): $1,392,343
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY, 15th): $1,304,569
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI, 15th): $1,148,060
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA, 7th): $1,136,519
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO, 7th): $1,102,468
Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA, 7th): $1,058,786
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA, 9th): $1,046,519
Here's a link for more context:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-clark-estes/introducing-the-eyesears_b_221118.html

The notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. And a study issued last month by a pro-reform group makes that strikingly clear.

The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country's insurance markets are defined as "highly concentrated," according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that's led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as "a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate."

So extreme is the level of consolidation, in fact, that one former top Federal Trade Commission official working with HCAN has sent a letter to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

During 2000-2007, the ten largest health insurance company profits rose a whopping 428%, from 2.4 billion to 12.9 billion. During this same period, the number of uninsured rose 19%, from 38.4 million to 45.7 million. CEO’s in the health insurance industry made $11.9 million. The CEO of Cigna made $25.8 million in compensation in 2007.

The average cost of health insurance premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent.

In 1993, 95% of health insurance premiums were spent on health care. As of two years ago, only 80% of health insurance premiums were spent on health care -- though the cost of premiums has risen more than 87% and the health insurance industry enjoyed a 428% increase in profits.

We're now seeing clear evidence that the health insurance industry is behind the town hall disruptions and misinformation. They’ve set up and funded organizations that encourage ill-informed citizens to attend and disrupt the meetings to prevent any real discussion or factual information from being presented. These dupes of the health insurance industry are given talking points and instructions about what to do and say to disrupt the meetings.

Are these the kind of corporations we want to allow to have a death-grip and stranglehold on our country and health care system??

Absolutely not. A government option will force the insurance companies to compete, lower premiums, do away with 'preexisting conditions' and other serious abuses.

Let me get this straight, you folks at the Washington Post must think that it's OK to lie on an insurance application. The offer of insurance was made based on what the applicant disclosed. Why should the honest be made to pay higher premiums so skizzlers can get a free ride? Yes, there are extenuating circumstances when people forget. I don't know how your state commissioners operate there, but here our elected commissioners have successfully reined in abusive companies.

caroll1,

are you serious? A PRO REFORM GROUP?

Why not just quote moveon.org

If i want something biased i'll go to your washington post.

Don't try to quote me that I'm not happy with my health insurance. Sure don't listen to me. Listen to the town halls. Not every one of them can be staged can they??

whose paying YOUR salary???

How about the abuses at the polls of moveon.org??? whose going to stop them now that they've run amok? Sure we need insurance reform, insurers could make less, a lot less.

But how about this you let me tell you how much you can make this coming year and if its not OK with me you'll just agree to it OK?

-------------------------------------------

mattryan1,

you're exactly right. Insurance applications clearly state all the required info. If people don't bother to read them then its no fault of their own. HIPAA has been in effective for over 10 years now. If people DON'T want to be subject to pre-ex I have ONE SIMPLE SOLUTION.

DON'T DROP YOUR INSURANCE. ITS CALLED INSURANCE, NOT COVER ME WHENEVER I FEEL LIKE PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM.

caroll1,

OOPS I MEANT HUFFINGTON POST.

FREUDIAN SLIP THERE.

ANYONE WHO WOULD TO KNOW THE INSIDE (be a "fly on the wall") OPERATION OF HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES must see/read this interview with Bill Moyers. The head of PR for Cigna, Wendell Potter, had a "battlefield conversion" of conscience one day, quit, and now tells all, singing like a canary, as it were...here's the link.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/transcript4.html

Thanks, David S. Hilzenrath, for having the courage to write this.

We know you do so at great personal risk, to you and your family, of your insurance company seeking retribution with contrived technicalities, if you need to make a claim.

Here is an interview to read/watch with Henry Waxman that gives a nice summary explanation of where the proposals on the health care bill are presently

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/4/rep_waxman_on_healthcare_reform_the

mattryan1, visionbrkr, you are mentally ill, or think like crooks. Everyone has something wrong with them (even if they don't know it? even if it is unrelated?.) You just confirmed the fact that insurers only want to insure the most perfectly healthy people.

Legislation won't change that (your lawyers will find loopholes.) Only hitting the pocketbook can change that.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE PEOPLE'S PUBLIC OPTION!

owldog,

you are so demented. Do you really think insurers are following a column in the WAPO and going to affect someone's claims by that? If not why don't they just deny Pelosi's claims? Waxman's? Reid's???

like i said insurers pay TRILLIONS in claims. Either they deny claims via pre-ex or they cost too much, you can't have BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT!

owldog,

you are so demented. Do you really think insurers are following a column in the WAPO and going to affect someone's claims by that? If not why don't they just deny Pelosi's claims? Waxman's? Reid's???

like i said insurers pay TRILLIONS in claims. Either they deny claims via pre-ex or they cost too much, you can't have BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT!

I think the circumstances of rescission should be limited. And if fact this article cites many of the kind of circumstances where it shouldn't be permitted. But then it cites the overall numbers of rescissions as if none were justified. Failing to reveal known risks as required in a contract to pay for treatment of those risks is a kind of fraud.

Of course the system of must cover/must carry, the only possible rational structure, gets rid of this problem. And from what I understand, all sides, meaning that this issue is a bit of a red herring, generally accept that change.

First of all, the members of Congress need to be committed to the public plan. They are public servants, and as such should either pay fully for their own PRIVATE insurance, or pay fully for participation in the public option they propose.No longer should Congress receive a taxpayer funded "group" policy that they do not actually pay for from their salary. As more and more private employers reduce or eliminate any subsidy on their private group plans, so too should we as Congresses employer cut back and eliminate our subsidy of their plans.

The only way to improve insurance coverage will be to criminalize the practice of kicking people off of private plans. This requires leveling the playing field by forcing insurance companies to accept any and all applicants, and to require them to escrow / invest premiums to actually pay future claims. This will mean that there will be strict limits on dividend payments and insurance industry employee / managerial compensation levels.

Other beneficial improvements is to require each insurance company to use one and only one "pool" on which they can establish their rates. This pool must include everyone that that particular insurance company covers, including their own employees, small businesses, and individuals. At the same time if one insurance company is able to achieve lower rates because of their pool individuals or employers may change carriers and join the lower cost pool, again eliminating the insurance carriers ability to deny, reject, or drop coverage for anyone in their plan regardless of reason.

If PROFITS are so evil; what are LOSES?

If PROFITS are so evil; why is OBAMA appointing so many Wall Street tycoons and fund raisers to ambassadorships?

If anyone thinks that they have insurance that they like and want to keep...you have never submitted a claim to these insurance cronies. I've paid my taxes, tried to live a clean life, believe in my country and God. Still, I was denied a claim simply because the last time I was in the hospital, things were not done in the correct order, according to the insurance company and it's bean counter. Their take on this is almost laughable if it wasn't for the seriousness of the situation. Profit first...patients be damned. We NEED socialized health care and insurance.

Don't trust Obama! Nothing he says has meaning because he can't be trusted.

Watch this video. You’ll see obama lie like a dog in his very own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3JKDTBOYKg

People need to wake up and see this lying fraud for who he is, an America hating, Saudi King bowing, dictator loving, former cocaine addict, racist Kenyan usurper dirt-bag Chicago thug!

bigfrog1,

well that's nice. Anyone can come on here and CLAIM that the insurance company did me wrong. Proving it, well that's another thing. i had a friend who claimed the same thing but then he went without coverage for 6 months and then correctly was subjected to pre-ex. if he didn't want that well then don't try to adversely select against the insurance company. its called insurance because it needs to be in effect ALL THE TIME. If it was just somebody paying for my healthcare you could only get it when you knew you needed care. How some people don't get that is beyond me.

If we only paid into a system when we needed care then it would never work.

That's like saying we'll only pay property taxes when our kids are in school age years. We pay them all the time so it covers EVERYONE.

I am quite surprised at reading some of the comments on this thread. The general consensus appears to be prioritising care for the health of the insurance company’s shareholders as opposed to the health of the citizen. The European country where I reside has a Health Service funded by income tax.

This used to be an excellent service but has now become an outdated system that is managed by incompetents who cannot prioritise essential services, who fail to reign in inefficient practices & a government who are not prepared to invest in new technology & efficiency.

One example are ‘asylum seekers’ & economic migrants, these people specifically travel from sub Saharan Africa, Asia & the Far East, ex Soviet block countries et alias knowing their chance of success in seeking the medical treatment they require is good. They come to our country to receive free health care they could not possibly afford in their country of origin & the irony is they are prioritised for health care against the resident citizens because they are deemed ‘ethnic minorities’.

There are countries in Europe that operate excellent systems where there they have small waiting lists for particular medical care, the citizen pays for their health plan directly to their government, the patient is treated quickly & efficiently, the medical practice is reimbursed for their services by the government. The only shareholder in this scenario is the government… who answer to the people. In the mentioning a system like that could never work in the USA, as it appears the people seem to prioritise profit over everything!

I have (relatively) excellent insurance coverage and (relative) job security. But even my insurance company has lately been trying to bluff me out. My doctor tipped me off, saying to challenge anything the insurance bill labels as not covered--because most of it is covered. It isn't the first time a doctor has helped me to negotiate this kind of theft by insurance companies. I consider these companies, in their current form, to be a kind of organized crime. I think most people know this, and I think the anti-reform protests are a pathetic sham.

You apply for what is laughingly called health insurance. You are to fill out a form listing every condition you ever had since birth. If you forget something, no matter. You're "covered." Until one day, you get seriously sick. Then the bureaucrats at the insurance company cross-check your application form against your medical records, to which they have access and you don't. Et, voila! Seasonal rhinitis (sneezing after exposure to pollen) is fraudulently not listed on your application. So you, the "insured" don't get treated for ovarian cancer. Result: you die, and the insurance company saves a huge chunk of money on a medical loss they didn't incur. That's capitalism! Cling to that as hard as you can shriekers. Better than going Socialist, Communist, or Fascist.

There seems to be broad agreement that insurers should not be allowed to consider preexisting conditions, which would end these horror stories. The debate is over what else goes into any health reform package. The simplest solution isn't even being talked about: allowing all individuals and small businesses to sign up under the same system that ensures federal workers. When I worked on the Hill, I had a wide range of private insurance plans to choose from, insurers could not consider preexisting conditions and I received the benefit of group rates. Opening up the federal program would eliminate the need for a public option, and, if coupled with a mandatory insurance requirement and some modest subsidies based on income, would get pretty close to universal coverage while helping to hold down costs. Since the program is subject to federal regulatory review, future changes could help push down the overall costs. It's so simple and easy it's no wonder that neither Congress nor the Administration have mentioned it.