Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: The moderator on 23 Sep 2009 09:57 "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Naeum.49208$JG1.39006(a)newsfe24.iad... > > >>> To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful >>> thinking to believe that the current insurance >>> companies are going to treat you fairly. >>> If they wanted to be up front about what >>> they do and do not cover there would be >>> a list. >> >> Coverage is defined and exceptions listed in every insurance policy. > > How come there are lawsuits, won by individuals, who claim > that they should have been covered and weren't? ... broad terms > like "experimental" are used to deny common sense procedures ... > procrastinating payment until the policyholder is dead ... > Do insurance companies insist that the details of their lost > cases not be revealed? Is there a list of what cases have been > filed and the verdicts and the outcomes for the families? Do you have any examples? Specifics? What about those ads on television from lawyers looking for clients to sue for health claims? Don't you think we could reduce insurance costs if we had some tort reform to limit how these shysters make money recruiting "victims?"
From: William Clark on 23 Sep 2009 11:26 In article <4aba2934$0$23766$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Naeum.49208$JG1.39006(a)newsfe24.iad... > > > > > >>> To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful > >>> thinking to believe that the current insurance > >>> companies are going to treat you fairly. > >>> If they wanted to be up front about what > >>> they do and do not cover there would be > >>> a list. > >> > >> Coverage is defined and exceptions listed in every insurance policy. > > > > How come there are lawsuits, won by individuals, who claim > > that they should have been covered and weren't? ... broad terms > > like "experimental" are used to deny common sense procedures ... > > procrastinating payment until the policyholder is dead ... > > Do insurance companies insist that the details of their lost > > cases not be revealed? Is there a list of what cases have been > > filed and the verdicts and the outcomes for the families? > > Do you have any examples? Specifics? > > What about those ads on television from lawyers looking for clients to sue > for health claims? Don't you think we could reduce insurance costs if we > had some tort reform to limit how these shysters make money recruiting > "victims?" Do you know what percentage of health care spending goes on these lawsuits? It is about 1-1.5%. In other words, while it is red meat to the wingnuts, it is almost inconsequential in cutting health care costs.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 23 Sep 2009 14:05 On Sep 22, 12:17 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:885bd0aa-5806-4c97-ae1f-2ca23b054fd3(a)v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 19, 3:36 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > >news:a7ec8d84-295f-4f3f-9b0c-9c00d32894ed(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > On Aug 12, 2:39 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7_Dgm.54312$sC1.29585(a)newsfe17.iad... > > > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > > > > a. allow individuals to buy out of state insurance (one bill) > > > > > b. require insurance for preexisting conditions (one bill) > > > > Amen to 1a. However, 1b should be limited to individuals being given a > > > one > > > time chance to join an individual plan without regard to pre-ex. If you > > > mandate it beyond that, there will not be an individual plan available > > > to > > > anybody. It's like lending money to somebody who can't afford it. > > > > > c. require portability of insurance between jobs and in the case of > > > > lost jobs. > > > > Amen. > > > > > d. do something about preventative medicine. Stop filling the > > > > emergency rooms with people who could have treated and cured > > > > by simple means before serious consequences occur. Stop giving > > > > primary care to medicaid and uninsured at expensive ERs. > > > > That's helpful but not a cure-all. > > > > > e. Audit insurance company payouts. One doctor testified before > > > > congress that her job was to deny claims and she admitted that her > > > > actions had killed patients and that she was totally unaccountable, > > > > she was promoted as a good employee. This is just sick. > > > > It is....and it's unusual. Most states have robust insurance depts. who > > > guard against this sort of practice. Nonetheless, a federal law banning > > > this wouldn't hurt. > > > > > f. Require payment based on outcomes, not on number of tests and > > > > procedures ... Necessary tests will be done if outcome is taken > > > > into account. > > > > You're getting into rationing and having other people, other than Drs.., > > > decide tests and procedures. > > > > -Greg > > > You can't allow every claim, so even a govt plan will have to deny > > claims, and such denials will always correlate with patient deaths, > > these people are ill anyways...in any event the argument that some > > claim was denied and some person died will always be with us. For me, > > it's just a matter of knowing what your insurance actually does > > provide. Most people don't, and get upset when faced with reality! > > Just speaking for myself, I have an organ transplant and a cancer add > > on to my insurance because there are holes in my policy in these > > areas, The add ons are very cheap, BTW. > > > _________________________ > > > This is one of the most important ponts (above). I'd like > > to know how, though, that you found what your policy > > does and does not cover. I'm guessing that you'll say > > "read your policy". Is it that simple? > > Talk to your insurer....instead of just assuming that any old thing is > covered and then blaming the company when it is not. > _________________________ > > To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful > thinking to believe that the current insurance > companies are going to treat you fairly. > If they wanted to be up front about what > they do and do not cover there would be > a list. They've always treated me fairly. I have never had them fail to pay for something that was covered and they have never been late in paying either me or a provider. Everything has always run really smoothly, and in a very timely manner, from service providers and the insurance industry.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 23 Sep 2009 14:06 On Sep 22, 7:43 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful > >> thinking to believe that the current insurance > >> companies are going to treat you fairly. > >> If they wanted to be up front about what > >> they do and do not cover there would be > >> a list. > > > Coverage is defined and exceptions listed in every insurance policy. > > How come there are lawsuits, won by individuals, who claim > that they should have been covered and weren't? ... broad terms > like "experimental" are used to deny common sense procedures ... > procrastinating payment until the policyholder is dead ... > Do insurance companies insist that the details of their lost > cases not be revealed? Is there a list of what cases have been > filed and the verdicts and the outcomes for the families? > > How can a doctor who worked for a large insurace company > testify before congress that she deliberately denied care to > people who deserved it, causing death, and was promoted by > the insurance company? > > Obviously coverage and exceptions are listed in a way that > allows for cheating and the effectual murdering of people > who have trusted and continue to trust that they will be > covered by their insurance company in a catastrophic illness. > > How many people died and will die as a result of Madoff's > fraud that stole money from charities? I wonder how it compares > to insurance company greed to the point of people suffering and > dying as a result. Has everyone forgotten the documented court > cases of abuse by health insurance companies? Even if this is somehow widespread, which I doubt, how is setting up a govt plan, who you cannot suue, going to solve the problem?
From: The moderator on 23 Sep 2009 14:29
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-1563F9.11265423092009(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <4aba2934$0$23766$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net>, > "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Naeum.49208$JG1.39006(a)newsfe24.iad... >> > >> > >> >>> To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful >> >>> thinking to believe that the current insurance >> >>> companies are going to treat you fairly. >> >>> If they wanted to be up front about what >> >>> they do and do not cover there would be >> >>> a list. >> >> >> >> Coverage is defined and exceptions listed in every insurance policy. >> > >> > How come there are lawsuits, won by individuals, who claim >> > that they should have been covered and weren't? ... broad terms >> > like "experimental" are used to deny common sense procedures ... >> > procrastinating payment until the policyholder is dead ... >> > Do insurance companies insist that the details of their lost >> > cases not be revealed? Is there a list of what cases have been >> > filed and the verdicts and the outcomes for the families? >> >> Do you have any examples? Specifics? >> >> What about those ads on television from lawyers looking for clients to >> sue >> for health claims? Don't you think we could reduce insurance costs if we >> had some tort reform to limit how these shysters make money recruiting >> "victims?" > > Do you know what percentage of health care spending goes on these > lawsuits? It is about 1-1.5%. In other words, while it is red meat to > the wingnuts, it is almost inconsequential in cutting health care costs. Really? Does that 1%-1.5% represent actual judgments or does it also include additional cost of insuring against a such a judgment? Does it include defending against those judgments? One and one half percent of health care is still nearly four Billion Dollars. Chump change to a Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can count. |