If You Feel Like Getting Angry

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Then read the article linked below in its entirety. Basically, heath insurer WellPoint and its subsidiaries used an algorithm to identify women recently diagnosed with breast cancer (and a list of other maladies) and then "rescinded" their health insurance for bullshit reasons to avoid paying for cancer treatments. A snapshot:

LOS ANGELES - One after another, shortly after a diagnosis of breast cancer, each of the women learned that her health insurance had been canceled. First there was Yenny Hsu, who lived and worked in Los Angeles. Later, Robin Beaton, a registered nurse from Texas. And then, most recently, there was Patricia Relling, a successful art gallery owner and interior designer from Louisville, Kentucky.

None of the women knew about the others. But besides their similar narratives, they had something else in common: Their health insurance carriers were subsidiaries of WellPoint, which has 33.7 million policyholders — more than any other health insurance company in the United States.

The women all paid their premiums on time. Before they fell ill, none had any problems with their insurance. Initially, they believed their policies had been canceled by mistake.

They had no idea that WellPoint was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted them and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.

Once the women were singled out, they say, the insurer then canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information. WellPoint declined to comment on the women's specific cases without a signed waiver from them, citing privacy laws.


Twisted fucks.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36711197
 
Oh you gotta love That Randian hero image the right wants to cling to that makes them believe the captains of industry are more moral than the average human.
 
Oh you gotta love That Randian hero image the right wants to cling to that makes them believe the captains of industry are more moral than the average human.

They are about just as moral as the average world leader trying to build an ideological world empire of tyranny, like obama.
 
I don't want to hear another word about "death panels."
Right. There is zero that would keep the government from doing the same, and they made themselves immune from lawsuits too. Meaning, no redress.

We should just ignore things like that and pretend that the government has never done anything like, well, let's look at Tuskegee and "experiments" on people, or the LSD experiments or things that might give people reason to pause.

Then lets look at Gulf War Syndrome and the breast cancer that the government refuses to cover from the vets there....

Then lets...

Well, I think you get the picture. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that fixes that, and every reason to mistrust the government to remain perfectly beneficent. In the name of "savings" the government can and IMO will do things even worse than this. Shoot, they didn't even need that kind of excuse to directly experiment on people without their knowledge or permission... Yeah, we should just trust them to do good...
 
Right. There is zero that would keep the government from doing the same, and they made themselves immune from lawsuits too. Meaning, no redress.

.

Please provide examples of the government dropping people from Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, or SCHIP on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
 
Please provide examples of the government dropping people from Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, or SCHIP on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
*sigh* (First let me point out that Cypress clearly cannot comprehend what an opinion is).

We'll just start with the soldiers (men) with breast cancer caused by exposure to substances while serving in Iraq (posted here on this site previously), and then we can speak to the fact that they (the government) saw a need to exempt themselves from lawsuits for a reason.
 
For me, the main point is that it's ridiculous to use the specter of "death panels" on the new plan, when insurance companies have had them for years.

And insurance companies have had quotas for denials - actual quotas. Damo, you talk about the gov't trying to avoid lawsuits; would they actually have quotas for denials? What would be their reasoning for doing so?
 
For me, the main point is that it's ridiculous to use the specter of "death panels" on the new plan, when insurance companies have had them for years.

And insurance companies have had quotas for denials - actual quotas. Damo, you talk about the gov't trying to avoid lawsuits; would they actually have quotas for denials? What would be their reasoning for doing so?
They didn't "try to avoid" lawsuits, they literally exempted themselves from them. They actually took away the only form of inadequate redress you had with the insurance companies...

If you can find one part of my posts that defend these corporations for what they did, please point them out. The only thing I point out here is that we only traded them for a source with an even worse past than this. (And before people try to say that the "government isn't taking over" health care, I will again point out that every single leader in DC that pushed to get this passed said that this was just the "first step on the path to single payer"...)
 
They didn't "try to avoid" lawsuits, they literally exempted themselves from them. They actually took away the only form of redress you had with the insurance companies...

If you can find one part of my posts that defend these corporations for what they did, please point them out. The only thing I point out here is that we only traded them for a source with an even worse past than this.

How is that a "worse" past? What is worse than regular, arbitrary denials of coverage, based on quotas?

That's absurd. I guarantee you more people were denied coverage w/ the old status quo than will ever be denied under the new plan.
 
How is that a "worse" past? What is worse than regular, arbitrary denials of coverage, based on quotas?

That's absurd. I guarantee you more people were denied coverage w/ the old status quo than will ever be denied under the new plan.
No it isn't "absurd"...

Deliberately and with vile purpose getting people sick isn't worse? At least these people had a (an inadequate one as I said earlier) form of redress.
 
No it isn't "absurd"...

Deliberately and with vile purpose getting people sick isn't worse? At least these people had a (an inadequate one as I said earlier) form of redress.

Would redress be like what I'm going through at the moment??

My "provider" first OK'd a treatment, that I"ve had in the past; but then changed their mind and denied it.
My Doctor is appealing it; because she said I've got better documentation then she's seen in the past, to support the claim.
 
For me, the main point is that it's ridiculous to use the specter of "death panels" on the new plan, when insurance companies have had them for years.

And insurance companies have had quotas for denials - actual quotas. Damo, you talk about the gov't trying to avoid lawsuits; would they actually have quotas for denials? What would be their reasoning for doing so?

a government death panel will forbid any doctor in the system from treating you. You are a walking dead man.
 
I don't want to hear another word about "death panels."

Why? What's the connection?

What's ironic to me is that you guys advocate forcing all of us to enrich these assholes. That'll teach em.

The problem is that you useful idiots believe the false dichotomy that one either wants more government interference in your health care or you support the insurance companies.
 
Right. There is zero that would keep the government from doing the same, and they made themselves immune from lawsuits too. Meaning, no redress.

We should just ignore things like that and pretend that the government has never done anything like, well, let's look at Tuskegee and "experiments" on people, or the LSD experiments or things that might give people reason to pause.

Then lets look at Gulf War Syndrome and the breast cancer that the government refuses to cover from the vets there....

Then lets...

Well, I think you get the picture. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that fixes that, and every reason to mistrust the government to remain perfectly beneficent. In the name of "savings" the government can and IMO will do things even worse than this. Shoot, they didn't even need that kind of excuse to directly experiment on people without their knowledge or permission... Yeah, we should just trust them to do good...


Yeah, I get the picture . . . you refuse to acknowledge and existing problem regarding the health insurance industry and instead trot a bunch of red herring bullshit rather than address the issue.

Pretty standard fare from you, really.
 
Yeah, I get the picture . . . you refuse to acknowledge and existing problem regarding the health insurance industry and instead trot a bunch of red herring bullshit rather than address the issue.

Pretty standard fare from you, really.

And you seem to think a government death panel protected by law from legal scrutiny is somehow better.

Your solution is a nonsolution and is actually worse.
 
Yeah, I get the picture . . . you refuse to acknowledge and existing problem regarding the health insurance industry and instead trot a bunch of red herring bullshit rather than address the issue.

Pretty standard fare from you, really.
:rolleyes:

You refuse to admit to a current problem with the government and health care with even the few they are supposed to cover and pretend that exempting those who decide care from lawsuits somehow makes it better. Pretty standard fare... (blah, blah...)

Now can you address my point? The benevolence of the government in regard to health care is exaggerated, and with this legislation they actually take away one of the few forms of redress people used to have...
 
Why? What's the connection?

What's ironic to me is that you guys advocate forcing all of us to enrich these assholes. That'll teach em.

The problem is that you useful idiots believe the false dichotomy that one either wants more government interference in your health care or you support the insurance companies.


What's the connection? Well, on the one hand we have actual very real currently existing death panels. On the other, we have the fevered imaginings of a former half term governor.

And while there is a dichotomy between the status quo - which is the above - and "government interference" - regulations to prevent the pernicious practices of the insurance industry - but it ain't a false one.
 
Back
Top