From: The Hammer on
On Oct 17, 12:31 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> Guardian life insurance company of America  issued a policy to a
> resident of the state of New York with muscular dystrophy.  Their
> annual payout to keep him alive is more than a million dollars.
> The Washington Times reported that since it would be illegal to cancel
> this one person's policy,  Guardian  legally cancelled the whole line
> of coverage that insured everybody like him in the state of New York,
> which wiped out an entire class of policy holders to avoid paying out
> for one person.  
>
> The Washington Times also reported that, "in an email one Guardian
> life insurance co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr.
> Pearl, 'Dogs' that the company could 'get rid of.' "
>
> Guardian's net income for 2008 was $437 million.
>
> BK

This is unfortunate, but the sad reality is that there are only so
much financial resources out there. The goal of a private insurance
company is to make a profit, or meet their costs at the very least,
while at the same time please as many policyholders as they can. The
needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. This is
unfortunate, I do not endose this, but that is just the way it is.

If the government takes over these payments, do you think they will
readily assume the annual payment of $1 million + dollars?. There is
not enough money there either, you can only tax people so much, tax
the insurance companies so much, and cut Medicare and reimbursements
to physicians. So, while the insurance company is rationing, the
government will find a way to ration also. There is simply not
enough money to go around, and physicians and hospitals will not do
the work for nothing, their overhead is alarming and without revenue
they cease to exist. We are seeing Darwinism in action here, the
weak will perish, the strong will survive. That is very unfortunate,
but society does not have unlimited resources to do custodial care as
this for millions of patients, they may just have to die. And while
that is very sad, it breaks my heart, that is they way it will
probably be. Because we have a government that has set its
priorities. There is always money it seems to conduct false wars,
bail out banks and brokerage houses, bail out failed industries, give
favors to prized political contributors, fund stupid pork projects,
and help foreign nations rebuild their infrastructures, but it seems
there is never enough to take care of the weak and sick. A good
example, New Orleans is still a mess, will remain a mess, but
there is always money to rebuild elsewhere. This President promised
change, he is a bigger liar and panderer than any before when it comes
to enabling big business and handing out political favors. It is sad,
but the people who supported Obama the most and bought into this BS
line of hope, are the ones at the front of the line to get screwed.
Bush was a fool, we now have a bigger fool in place. He could not
care less about the sick and weak, all he cares about is political
power. This has nothing to do with health care, anyone that buys
into anything else is just plain stupid. And these stupid people will
be the first in line to play the victum card when this all passes and
they find themselves taxed to death, and with less to show for all
these taxes.
From: bknight on
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
<GaGolfer2009(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Oct 17, 12:31�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
>> Guardian life insurance company of America �issued a policy to a
>> resident of the state of New York with muscular dystrophy. �Their
>> annual payout to keep him alive is more than a million dollars.
>> The Washington Times reported that since it would be illegal to cancel
>> this one person's policy, �Guardian �legally cancelled the whole line
>> of coverage that insured everybody like him in the state of New York,
>> which wiped out an entire class of policy holders to avoid paying out
>> for one person. �
>>
>> The Washington Times also reported that, "in an email one Guardian
>> life insurance co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr.
>> Pearl, 'Dogs' that the company could 'get rid of.' "
>>
>> Guardian's net income for 2008 was $437 million.
>>
>> BK
>
>This is unfortunate, but the sad reality is that there are only so
>much financial resources out there. The goal of a private insurance
>company is to make a profit, or meet their costs at the very least,
>while at the same time please as many policyholders as they can. The
>needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. This is
>unfortunate, I do not endose this, but that is just the way it is.


Unfortunate? I don't think so.

Make a profit? $437 million NET last year.

Guardian has plenty of resources to cover contracts they have made.
They have over 5,000 employees, many of which are actuaries. They
knew what they were insuring.

Had they just refused to sell this class of policy any more, it
would be understandable. But this guy paid his premiums and deserved
better, not to mention all of the others (Dogs!) whose contracts were
voided.

I have no problem with any company making sure that there is profit,
but this was morally wrong.
BK

From: The Hammer on
On Oct 17, 5:56 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>
>
>
>
>
> <GaGolfer2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 17, 12:31 pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote:
> >> Guardian life insurance company of America  issued a policy to a
> >> resident of the state of New York with muscular dystrophy.  Their
> >> annual payout to keep him alive is more than a million dollars.
> >> The Washington Times reported that since it would be illegal to cancel
> >> this one person's policy,  Guardian  legally cancelled the whole line
> >> of coverage that insured everybody like him in the state of New York,
> >> which wiped out an entire class of policy holders to avoid paying out
> >> for one person.  
>
> >> The Washington Times also reported that, "in an email one Guardian
> >> life insurance co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr.
> >> Pearl, 'Dogs' that the company could 'get rid of.' "
>
> >> Guardian's net income for 2008 was $437 million.
>
> >> BK
>
> >This is unfortunate, but the sad reality is that there are only so
> >much financial resources out there.   The goal of a private insurance
> >company is to make a profit,  or meet their costs at the very least,
> >while at the same time please as many policyholders as they can.  The
> >needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many.  This is
> >unfortunate, I do not endose this, but that is just the way it is.
>
> Unfortunate?  I don't think so.
>
> Make a profit?  $437 million NET last year.
>
> Guardian has plenty of resources to cover contracts they have made.
> They have over 5,000 employees, many of which are actuaries.  They
> knew what they were insuring.
>
>  Had they  just refused to sell this class of policy any more, it
> would be understandable.  But this guy paid his premiums and deserved
> better, not to mention all of the others  (Dogs!) whose contracts were
> voided.  
>
>  I  have no problem with any company making sure that there is profit,
> but this was morally wrong.
> BK- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Agreed, it is certainly morally wrong, but when did morals mean
anything when it comes to the business world? The whole thing
stinks. But in spite of how much it all stinks, most people are still
pretty dang happy with their coverage and the health care they
receive. The system is far from perfect, but meets the needs quite
well for the majority of Americans.

Do you not think we will continue to hear tragic stories as this, when
this government takeover happens?. I say we will, in fact I say we
will TENFOLD! Anyone naive enough to believe that Obama and his den
of congressional thieves feel anyones pain is a fool. They are out
for control, PERIOD!

Rather than revamp the whole system for the benefit of really a
small group who has no or inadequate coverage, let us find a way to
get these poor souls taken care of. We are a caring sympathetic
people, we don't want anyone to die, suffer, or be put out in the
streets. But do it right, anyone with half a brain knows that it will
not be done right, it will be screwed up worse. Anyone in the
business knows what is coming. You cannot cut Medicare they way they
are saying, tax insurancee companies, businesses, and individuals, and
still deliever the high level of care we are used to. Obama care
means doctors retiring or, leaving the field, and many hospitals and
clinics closing their doors because of inadequate reimbursement.
Very few will want to go into medical school and go near this mess.
And this will mean de facto rationing. No "death squads" literally,
but some of these poor people might be better off just being killed
quickly by a "death squad", instead of suffering and dying slowly
because of a system that is so stressed that it has no choice but to
turn its back on so many. It is coming. It is very sad, anyone who
believes better times are coming for health care in this country is
delusional.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:22:02 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
<GaGolfer2009(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>You say that" insurance companies do not have have betterment of its
>clients health ". No one has ever said insurance companies are
>perfect, but the overwhelming majority of Amercians covered by
>insurance plans ARE satisfied with their coverage and claims service.

But we don't like the fact that our medical bills have been raised to
pay the hospitals for treating the uninsured. And we don't like it
when we are in between jobs and have to switch to COBRA or drop
insurance altogether. Those aren't what the poll asked about, but
they are certainly a part of the discussion.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Jack Hollis on
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:21:05 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:

>My post had nothing to do with politics or health plan revisions. I
>merely passed on a happening about an insurance company that fucked
>over a slew of people for money's sake.

The article did mention that what the company did was legal. Perhaps
the fault lies with the state law that allows them to do a thing that
really is unfair. I can see the company being able to stop issuing
insurance that is unprofitable, but to be able to retroactively cancel
existing policies of that type, should be against the law.

One of the problems is that insurance law is very complex and, in some
cases, the legislators really don't understand the laws that they
pass. As we have seen, even Federal legislators pass laws that they
not only don't understand, they don't even read them.

My wife's a specialist in group health insurance with almost 30 years
experience. She is often contacted by state officials who need an
explanation of what their state laws mean. It's not her job, but the
company doesn't mind her doing favors for state officials once in a
while.