To trot out debunked claims of people losing their insurance for reasons that don’t exist.

But hey, keep on trotting those lies out, and we’ll keep on swatting them down.

The funny part is that liberals like Tano fully support and endorse this.

One patient in Oregon got a letter that made this all too clear, when in the same letter rejecting her request for life-extending chemotherapy, Oregon offered her “physician-aid-in-dying”.

So put bluntly, Tano is shrieking about and demanding that insurance companies cover people who flat-out lied about their health conditions, but then supports and endorses telling people to kill themselves so the Obama Party doesn’t have to pay for their chemotherapy.

Add to that how Tano and the Obama Party support leaving “unwanted” babies to die on the hospital floor, and you see very quickly that moocher Tano doesn’t give a rat’s ass about human life.

You’re one sick sonofabitch, Turdo.

Where is the lie?
I sit back with amusement and read all you guys just digging your hole deeper. No doubt you sincerely believe what you write. But to normal people, you sound like monsters. More, please.

Audits that can result in rescession can come from a number of places. The insurance company, the plan sponsor, and the state.

Don’t forget, the insurance company has obligations to the insured, and the plan sponsor, and the providers. Not to mention the stock holders. All of those combine to insure (pun intended) a balancing act.

Disclaimer: I still don’t speak for my employer, I’m too blunt.

I think you’re absolutely right about payments for routine stuff. Health care consumers have become so detached from the actual costs of treatment that they rarely have a problem with spending their insurance companies’ money. Involving the (as you call it) “gummint” is only going to compound that.

The solution? As I’ve said (and no doubt you agree) many times: More individual choice, freedom, and responsibility. If we were paying out of pocket (or better, out of tax-free HSAs) for more of our health care, we’d all be a LOT more cognizant (and therefore demanding) about how much it costs.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/18/video-savings-are-a-myth/

So much for the Dear Reader’s pledge to not raise taxes on “95% of Americans”.

That’s like having your car insurance cancelled after an accident because you failed to mention a parking ticket from a couple of years back.

More like it was cancelled because you neglected to mention that your tail lights don’t work. And yes they can do that. It’s part of the agreement you sign your name to. What the liberals are demanding is similar to buying car insurance after you had the accident. They’re trying to piss down our backs and tell us it’s going to save money in the long run when it can’t possibly.

But it is hard to be sympathetic towards insurance companies when you imagine being a patient with a serious disease reading the letter from the insurance company, which had been happily accepting payments, telling you buzz off.

But they happily accept payments because they assumed the customer was telling the truth. I find it harder to be sympathetic to those who cheat their way in life. Should they keep covering that person and screw over the rest of the customers to make up for it or what?

I mentioned that the 20,000 number sounded pretty small given the number of policies issued and the number of claims paid. And it’s worth noting that in these cases, there was recourse (even if inconvenient). Once the gummint starts making decisions (as they will) recourse will be limited (lawsuit in federal court?).

But it is hard to be sympathetic towards insurance companies when you imagine being a patient with a serious disease reading the letter from the insurance company, which had been happily accepting payments, telling you buzz off.

My father, a physician, left private practice some years ago (went to work for the gummint) – in large part because he had tired of spending more and more time battling with insurance companies and Medicare (with decreasing reimbursements) which left less time to see patients (which is his first love). He has entertaining stories of arguing with some insurance company doc or nurse, who’d never seen the patient, trying to tell him how to manage a case.

My position has always been that the problem with our healthcare system is involvement of third-party payers. Health insurance should be like car insurance: pays major claims.

It’s great that my carrier will pay for a $25 flu shot but my coverage (I pay part of the premium) is sky-high… just as my car insurance would be if they covered oil changes and car washes.

[C]ompanies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing—conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue—including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.
This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant’s disclosure.

And this should give a little (shockingly absent from an NPR–of all sources–report) context to the 20K recissions item:

These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers’ analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).

I recognize it wasn’t your point to do so, but many have taken these instances out of context to try to demonize insurance companies who are in reality trying to best run their companies without going insolvent thanks to clients of theirs who may be trying to game the system.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/19/the-obamacare-horror-story-you-won’t-hear/

TGC and straightaussie – I understand the concept of contracts and all that. The issue I have is that her insurance company (which did reinstate her coverage after some pressure from her congressman – a Republican) had no problem taking her word for it and collecting premiums as long as nothing major happened.

Then, only after she is diagnosed with a fatal ailment and scared to death, they decide to do due diligence and pull the plug.

In any case, I suspect she would have received treatment (lots of people are treated pro bono or at taxpayer expense).

I also suspect that rescissions are relatively rare (but they make excellent political theater). An NPR report quotes a study that said about 20,000 rescissions by three large insurers occurred over a five year period. This backs up John’s point that wrecking our system for a very small number of cases doesn’t make any sense.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105680875&ft=1&f=1001

This from an idiot member of a party that believes it’s a moral imperative to use acres of food to power their little cars so they can feel really, really good about themselves while people in third world countries starve to death. Show me an employee of Planned Parenthood who is responsible for disposing of the facility’s “medical waste” at the end of the day, and I’ll show you a “soulless monster.”