HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost Well Point is about to crank rates up by 39 percent. Inflation has been pretty bad lately and they only made 3.7 billion last quarter. I can see why. Poor babies.
I didn’t have time for this yesterday or most of today. Do you want me to answer those who answered my last posts, or will you all do the usual and bitch because I did so?
Here’s an idea: How about saying what you mean, and on the subjects of the threads you post in, rather than your pet peeves? I’m not being smartass nor attacking nor mocking you in saying this – it’s a belligerent, pontificating, in-your-face tone that everybody should hold the same opinions as you that irks people.
Yeah, you don’t care for children, and prefer raising show dogs. Your preference; your choice. But have the common decency to realize that people who do have children care about them.
It’s true that there are some people who think that “I have insurance” covers against any and all possible events, and if your coverage specificlly excepts flooding or earthquake or something, you still ought to be paid for damages from them. But also take note that, especially with health insurance, there are claims adjusters who are specifically looking for reasons to refuse to pay. It’s crooked, it’s poor business policy, and it is done. In a bit of fiction I wrote, I had a good cop say, “One bad cop makes all the rest of us look bad.” The same is, unfortunately, true of insurance claims departments – there are good, honest ones, and there are ones looking to collect premiums but refuse to pay out benefits.
While we’re at it, I’d really like to understand your position on government pay-outs. In case you’ve missed it, SSDI differs in no way from workman’s compensation, Medicaid, etc.: it’s government funds taken from taxpayers and paid out to those who need it, most of whom paid into it when they were actively employed. Like Broomstick and myself, for example. Barb and I are surviving on her part-time work, our pensions from Civil Service employment, and such a small sum in EBT that the stamps and photocopies to recertify are a significant percentage of the benefits – having lost our rental home to a fallen tree, on which the landlady collected and told us to begone. The idea that you’re sitting in a nice home in Orange County saying how people should take responsibility for their own futures and not depend on your precious savings, while living off the Federal dole, is maximally irritating.
So address the points made to you, and leave off the snark. It may be too late, you may have made a bed you need to lie in henceforth, but maybe you can actually be a part of the Doper community, exchanging ideas. Because, quite frankly, your present behavior seems to me (though seemingly not as yet to the moderation staff) to be in violation of Rule #1.
Nice. So if a majority votes to impose Christianity as the required national religion (along with the requite constitutional amendment), I assume you will be OK with that or emigrate if not?
The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Well, you are going to have to give an example of a post of mine where I didn’t say what I meant, wasn’t on subject and where I was belligerent, pontificating and/or in your face when I wasn’t responding to a post that was belligerent, pontificating and/or in your face. I also don’t care if people hold the same opinion that I do - if I did, I certainly wouldn’t post any anti-UHC stuff in here! 
Not show dogs, but whatever. As for people caring about their children, I’m not sure I understand what you are talking about there.
OK, lets say that is true, which since it is essentially against the law, I have trouble believing any company would admit to publicly. People still have recourse other than just complaining and claiming there is nothing they can do. What will they do when the government does this same thing to them? They do it to Medicare patients, so why not with a UHC? Why is it that they hold insurance companies to a higher standard than any other company, even higher than hospitals and doctor’s offices? Or do I just miss the threads where someone complains about the billing errors made and how it messed up their credit and threatened to put them in bankruptcy?
Social Security is a pension fund that everyone (who pays in) will get back when they quit working either due to disability or old age. The fact that the government loots the SS funds to pay other programs doesn’t negate the fact that SS is still essentially a government forced IRA. The others are those safety nets that folks here like to talk about, and are in no way guaranteed to be given back. Indeed, it is better for society if no one needs to draw on worker’s comp, Medicaid or any of the other “safety nets” that are out there. If fewer people did, we’d have to pay less in tax and maybe the government could quit looting SS.
I paid out taxes over the decades so others could use, and frequently abuse, those safety nets, and I also paid taxes for SS for when I wouldn’t be able to work, or got old enough to retire. Unable to work came first, and unless I live to be quite old (I’m not good at math, so I can’t tell you the age), I will not get as much benefit as I would have had I been able to wait until I was 62 or 65.
I am not living off the Federal dole any more than you are living off of the civil service dole. How is your civil service pension any different than social security? It is “maximally irritating” to be told that you think that my social security is welfare, while your pension isn’t.
It is also “maximally irritating” to be expected to live on less just because you are. Why am I responsible for raising your level of living to where ever you want it to be? Why should anyone other than you and your wife be responsible for it? This is one thing I really don’t get - why is it that when something happens, people automatically look to the outside for help, rather than to themselves?
Heck, I’d love to live on acreage again, buy cars new and travel the world. Where do I go to get someone else to raise my standard of living?
You mean, like you just did?
Since the rules don’t seem to be numbered, I don’t know which one you are referring to. As for exchanging ideas, it seems that there is no problem as long as I agree with the status quo - I certainly do not only post on health care issues.
You believe insurance companies can be punished under the law for denying benefits; this is simply not true. There are no negative consequences under the law when a company denies benefits to group health insurance policy holders. The reason for this has been explained to you over, and over, and over again. This is an example of your pig headed obstinacy in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
You are just posting the same crap over and over again, without regard to what any one says here. And then you adopt this martyr complex when people criticize your incessant posting.
I think something in those napkin sandwiches rotted your brain.
Nobody has posted any “proof” that insurance companies can deny without cause any services that are covered under a policy. If you think someone has done this, link to it so I can see what you have misinterpreted. Medical insurance, not auto or life or any of that since it is medical that is under discussion and medical (dental and vision) that I spend over a quarter of a century paying.
It is not “pig headed” to disagree with someone who is wrong. Unless things have changed drastically since 2007, there are a slew of insurance laws in place to protect claimants. One of things many of you all in here seem to do is pick up on something you want to believe and then carry it forward as “fact”. Another one is to read one sentence in a response, take it out of context and run with it. It appears you have done one or both of these here.
Oy, veh. :rolleyes:
People do have recourse but you are ignoring the fact that even if the insurance company is finally convinced to pay on the claim, they can benefit from postponing that payment, and the customer can suffer from that postponement. Also, you keep asking what people will do when the government screws them like this, but you don’t seem to understand that under UHC it is simply not possible to screw people over by denying claims after the care has been provided. Take the Canadian system, for example - there is no paying and reimbursing that goes on. You get procedure X done and go on your merry way, the end. No bill is ever seen, no financial transaction is made by the patient at all. Of course there are things the UHC doesn’t cover - cosmetic procedures, for example - but you would know that before hand.
Rule #1 = don’t be a jerk. For gods sake, you are as entitled to your opinion as anybody else, but we are also entitled to mock you for it if we see fit, so quit playing the martyr.
I have, in every thread where you suggest insurance companies can be punished for denying coverage. I suggest you go back a read my posts regarding the federal ERISA statutes of 1974 that forbid punitive damages against insurance companies with regard to employer based group health insurance policies.
You have failed to read anything anyone else has posted, so I will not bother to link to my previous posts, just so you can ignore them again. I am only responding to you now to hold you up to the ridicule you so richly deserve. You demonstrate again and again that you are incapable of adult argument or debate; you childishly repeat your playground mantra over and over, hoping to outlast every one else and thereby confirm your baseless notions.
For once, I hope everyone here will continue to rub your nose in the feces you persist in posting so that you will learn you are a Bad Puppy!! Badd!!
No Napkin Sandwiches for You!
I posted this (courtesy of Mr Eric Blair) on another thread a couple of years ago, but I kinda think it’s apropos here:
http://attorneypages.com/hot/healthcare-rescission.htm Will this do or can you still cover your eyes.
Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review: California Insurers Lose a Big Court Case In the Health Insurance Policy Rescission Controversy And here is another article describing exactly the problem Curlcoat refuses to believe.
All this says is “it happens” - no specifics, no examples, nothing. And it’s a website by attorneys - yeah, they don’t have any reason to encourage people to sue… :rolleyes: However, at least they did say that if you think an insurance company has screwed you - “Write to your State Department of Insurance. In the U.S., each state regulates insurance companies and every state has its own Department of Insurance website. Once you know the website of your state regulatory agency Department of Insurance, find the right representative and submit a complaint in writing to make sure that your claim is on record.” Remember, I didn’t say this stuff doesn’t happen, I said it’s illegal and I doubt that insurance companies go about publicly stating that they deny claims for no legit reason.
This one appears to be for an individual policy and I have no experience there. Particularly WRT pre-exist since that essentially doesn’t exist in group policies these days. This is a big deal with insurance companies that write individual polices since, as the article says, people like to go get an insurance policy after getting an expensive diagnosis.
This one also looks like it is about individual policies, but it is also about how it is illegal for insurance companies to do many of these things, so it seems to support what I said.
Only if they sit on their hands and whine, instead of doing something about it. For example, I had an ER visit in New Mexico several years back and somehow Aetna paid a local doctor instead of the New Mexico ER doc. Aetna wanted to wait until they got the money back from the wrong doc before paying the right one, I let that go for one billing period and then called again. They still wanted to wait, I called the insurance commissioner, bill paid. I sympathize that they may never get the money back but - not my problem!
No, but apparently you are ignoring the fact that under a UHC they may not be able to get the care at all, since all care will have to be approved except for emergencies and basic stuff. Also, you may get the care but the Dr may not get paid - think your Dr is going to want to keep treating you?
I’m not playing any martyr - I was originally pointing out that you deflect attention from what I say by coming up with random insults - i.e., being a jerk. But then, you did deflect attention from that as well.
Uh, you want me to search thru the whole board to try to find some post from you that is about something that is over 35 years old?
Yeah, right. In other words “I’m right, I’ve always been right and therefore I don’t have to prove it to you.”
Intelligent people do not housebreak by rubbing a dog’s nose in poop. If that is your idea of how to influence people and events, I can see why you haven’t had much success.
Do you really not notice that in both of your links, it was shown that what the insurance company did was illegal? Which is what I said?
I like the logic. It’s like saying ‘Murder is illegal, therefore it doesn’t happen.’
But then, Mr. Orwell’s observations have been covered upthread.
Thank you for the great example of how you all “think”. Of course I never said anything about “murder” not happening, but you go right ahead and believe whatever fairy tale you want.
Well, if you are desperately ill and hospitalized, or caring for a critically ill loved one, I doubt it feels like ‘sitting on your hands and whining’ when the insurance company decides to bone you. In any case, these things shouldn’t happen at all.
Under UHC everyone gets any necessary medical care. Same as under private insurance. It’s not like if you are privately insured you can just wander into the hospital and have whatever medical procedure you’d like (hey, I think I’ll have my appendix out today! What fun!). Nothing needs to get specially approved under UHC - you go to the doctor, and if he or she thinks you need X procedure, that’s what you get. The doctor cannot ‘not get paid’, because the government pays them.
You really don’t seem to understand how a UHC works. There is no means for billing people - it just doesn’t happen. You personally do not have to worry about things being approved, out of network, etc. - that is all taken care of by the administration. UHC just cuts out the middle man, basically.
I really don’t understand why you keep accusing me of ‘deflecting’ - I’m addressing the points you are making. Yes, I am also insulting you, but that’s because I think your arguements are stupid and also, hey, it’s fun! But there is no deflecting.
I also like how when you complain it’s simply pointing out facts, but when others complain it’s childish whining.
What’s the relevance of whether or not they publicly admit to it? The problem is that they screw people and play games with denying claims and delaying payment because they can get away with it. Even in your example where you called the insurance commissioner, what was the consequence to the insurance company? That they were forced to pay what they owed in the first place? Big deal. I want a system with some teeth that makes it so when they fail to uphold their end of the contract, they are punished severely enough that they are legitimately discouraged from doing it on a regular basis.
There are no negative consequences for violating that law. Why should insurance companies obey it?