Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of "5" for "exceptional performance" on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

WellPoint's Blue Cross of California subsidiary and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period, the House committee said.

I'm glad to know the private health insurance industry is happy to take my money, as long as I don't take theirs.

Skyrocketing premiums and copays, reduced coverage, and a for-profit industry that is making more insured Americans uninsured by the day.

Can't they just make that illegal with actual jail time as the penalty?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Woooo so the government will deny me coverage instead of the insurance company. Whup dee f'n do.

Link to Medicare purging their rolls and targeting cancer patients?

or ban.

I had 48K of medicare claims denied last year, the state of CA ended up eating the difference.

So whatever the federal government didn't cover, your state government did cover.

Sounds like socialist/fascist/communist health care worked out fine for you. Better than a $48,000 bill.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The government-run health care solution definitely is *not* the right solution.

The government doesn't "run" health care; they provide insurance.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The practice of dumping perfectly honest patients because they have an illness is (to me) abhorrent and should not be tolerated. Heck, I'd be fine with tossing any executive pushing that activity in jail. However, lets not forget that lots of applicants lie on their applications to try and get better rates. They omit information about pre-existing conditions that prevent the company from accurately pricing it's service. You can't complain about getting dropped when you lied on your application to begin with.

You guys seem to mention this "for profit" like it's something bad, something to be stamped out. Newsflash to you silly socialists: the drive for profit is what makes things more efficient and drives companies to find better ways of doing things. When the government does something, there is no motivation to be more efficient, there is no reason to be better.

Another newsflash: you don't have to find examples of how the current system is borked. We all know it. The fact that it's messed up now doesn't have any bearing on whether a new proposed solution is a good idea or not. It's like going to the mechanic because your car is pulling to one side. The mechanic tells you it's because it's out of alignment. Then, he proposes to put square wheels on the car to fix it. Sure, you can agree that there's a problem and it needs fixed, but that doesn't mean any proposed solution is a good idea. The government-run health care solution definitely is *not* the right solution.

BS

Thank you for your clever insight and reasoning. I look forward to more such well reasoned posts in the future. :roll:

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The practice of dumping perfectly honest patients because they have an illness is (to me) abhorrent and should not be tolerated. Heck, I'd be fine with tossing any executive pushing that activity in jail. However, lets not forget that lots of applicants lie on their applications to try and get better rates. They omit information about pre-existing conditions that prevent the company from accurately pricing it's service. You can't complain about getting dropped when you lied on your application to begin with.

You guys seem to mention this "for profit" like it's something bad, something to be stamped out. Newsflash to you silly socialists: the drive for profit is what makes things more efficient and drives companies to find better ways of doing things. When the government does something, there is no motivation to be more efficient, there is no reason to be better.

Another newsflash: you don't have to find examples of how the current system is borked. We all know it. The fact that it's messed up now doesn't have any bearing on whether a new proposed solution is a good idea or not. It's like going to the mechanic because your car is pulling to one side. The mechanic tells you it's because it's out of alignment. Then, he proposes to put square wheels on the car to fix it. Sure, you can agree that there's a problem and it needs fixed, but that doesn't mean any proposed solution is a good idea. The government-run health care solution definitely is *not* the right solution.

I'm not against profits, but while it does drive efficiency, it also drives greed and corruption. Look at the mortgage mess, the AIG mess, the banking mess, Enron, and as far as I'm concerned, the OP.

No, profits do not drive greed, greed has always been there and will always be there, profit motive or not. I agree completely that there is a flip side to the efficiency coin. Still, every society that has tried to remove the profit motive (communist/socialist/utopian, whatever) fails. I think as a society you are better off harnessing the efficiency while at the same time changing the framework to remove incentives that go against the social good.

All businesses do whatever they can to maximize profits. What we need to do as a society is make sure there is a cost associated with actions that do harm to our society, and businesses will factor that cost into their decision making process.

An example to illustrate: a big corporation can dump toxic waste into the local river and make $100 in profit. If they handle the waste properly, they only make $50 in profit. The business will dump the toxic waste into the local river. However, if there's a large cost associated with that socially undesirable action (polluting the river) of $100, then the business will factor that cost into the decision and ultimately do the right thing. Ultimately, you can control the behavior of corporations by managing the profit incentive. That way, the drive for efficiency is maintained, but the negative aspects can be curbed.

Lets face it, any "overhaul" of health care that doesn't actually address the rising cost of health care itself is doomed to be a failure. Similarly, tort reform is an absolute MUST if the health care system is going to be "fixed". Any new plan that doesn't include tort reform is bogus.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Lets face it, any "overhaul" of health care that doesn't actually address the rising cost of health care itself is doomed to be a failure.

I can 100% agree with that and like I said, I'm not against profits...I'm against pure greed, especially when it comes to human life and the idea that you pay the premiums, they pay the insurance.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The practice of dumping perfectly honest patients because they have an illness is (to me) abhorrent and should not be tolerated. Heck, I'd be fine with tossing any executive pushing that activity in jail. However, lets not forget that lots of applicants lie on their applications to try and get better rates. They omit information about pre-existing conditions that prevent the company from accurately pricing it's service. You can't complain about getting dropped when you lied on your application to begin with.

You guys seem to mention this "for profit" like it's something bad, something to be stamped out. Newsflash to you silly socialists: the drive for profit is what makes things more efficient and drives companies to find better ways of doing things. When the government does something, there is no motivation to be more efficient, there is no reason to be better.

Another newsflash: you don't have to find examples of how the current system is borked. We all know it. The fact that it's messed up now doesn't have any bearing on whether a new proposed solution is a good idea or not. It's like going to the mechanic because your car is pulling to one side. The mechanic tells you it's because it's out of alignment. Then, he proposes to put square wheels on the car to fix it. Sure, you can agree that there's a problem and it needs fixed, but that doesn't mean any proposed solution is a good idea. The government-run health care solution definitely is *not* the right solution.

BS

Thank you for your clever insight and reasoning. I look forward to more such well reasoned posts in the future. :roll:

It was more thought out than your Sloganeered crap that's painfully obvious to see is wrong.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Here is the deal. If you sign a contract that allows them to terminate it than that is your fault. READ WHAT YOU SIGN BEFORE YOU SIGN IT. If the company doesn't want to provide you the terms you want, go to a difference company.

Isn't capitalism great?

LOL. Yeah, going to a different insurance company after another one dropped you is soooo incredibly easy. All you need is a huge mountain of cash. Every American has that!

Especially when you have a "pre-existing condition" now.

No no no, read what you have BEFORE you sign on the dotted line. If you plan does not cover cancer than it doesn't cover cancer and you should not expect it to cover cancer.

Say you buy the cheapest auto insurance. That is usually liability insurance and might not include collision. Are you going to get upset when your car company doesn't replace your car when you have an "at fault" accident?

 

[theeedude]

I will let Republicans defend this since they are so eager.

 

[UberNeuman]

Why can't these sick people just have the good grace to go and die....

Think of all the money saved...

/unless it's a Terri Schiavo case, then WE MUST SAVE THEM AT ALL COST!!!!!!

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Here is the deal. If you sign a contract that allows them to terminate it than that is your fault. READ WHAT YOU SIGN BEFORE YOU SIGN IT. If the company doesn't want to provide you the terms you want, go to a difference company.

Isn't capitalism great?

LOL. Yeah, going to a different insurance company after another one dropped you is soooo incredibly easy. All you need is a huge mountain of cash. Every American has that!

Especially when you have a "pre-existing condition" now.

No no no, read what you have BEFORE you sign on the dotted line. If you plan does not cover cancer than it doesn't cover cancer and you should not expect it to cover cancer.

Say you buy the cheapest auto insurance. That is usually liability insurance and might not include collision. Are you going to get upset when your car company doesn't replace your car when you have an "at fault" accident?

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the point. Let me give you an example:

1. You buy health insurance.
2. You pay your premiums every month.
3. Some time later, you are diagnosed with cancer.
4. You begin treatment for your cancer.
5. Your health insurance cancels your coverage citing "discrepancies" in your application.
6. You will now be denied health coverage from other providers or have to pay high premiums for your pre-existing condition.

In other words, it has nothing to do with: "If you plan does not cover cancer than it doesn't cover cancer and you should not expect it to cover cancer."

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I will let Republicans defend this since they are so eager.

None of them are actually defending this, since it's indefensible. All they can do is deflect...and deflect is all they're doing.

 

[Siddhartha]

I have read where some people are saying that Mr Obama's health care plan denies people their freedom. Can someone please explain this to me?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Patranus
Here is the deal. If you sign a contract that allows them to terminate it than that is your fault. READ WHAT YOU SIGN BEFORE YOU SIGN IT. If the company doesn't want to provide you the terms you want, go to a difference company.

Isn't capitalism great?

LOL. Yeah, going to a different insurance company after another one dropped you is soooo incredibly easy. All you need is a huge mountain of cash. Every American has that!

Especially when you have a "pre-existing condition" now.

No no no, read what you have BEFORE you sign on the dotted line. If you plan does not cover cancer than it doesn't cover cancer and you should not expect it to cover cancer.

Say you buy the cheapest auto insurance. That is usually liability insurance and might not include collision. Are you going to get upset when your car company doesn't replace your car when you have an "at fault" accident?

So you are ok with insurance companies dropping people when they need expensive treatment because it is discovered that they forgot to put on their app that they were treated for acne at one point in their life?

Because that is how they do it and it isn't uncommon. This has nothing to do with an insurance company not covering cancer but way to just make stuff up.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I have read where some people are saying that Mr Obama's health care plan denies people their freedom. Can someone please explain this to me?

Lie + Buzzword = Talking Point

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp
I will let Republicans defend this since they are so eager.

None of them are actually defending this, since it's indefensible. All they can do is deflect...and deflect is all they're doing.

Oh they are defending it, just read.

 

[ericlp]

It amazes me to know that the honest tax payer (are there any left)... Finally paid off the house, car and credit cards. Living the Dream and paying for health care for the past 30 years... Starts having problems. Well, no duh! He's old, so he goes in for heat trouble and get's denied claims and the insurance companies drop him. Now that he has no where to turn since he/she is not old enough to get medicade, they are going after his house and what other money is has saved up in his bank to help pay for his care. Meanwhile... Lazy Drugies and illegal's are abusing the system. They ain't got jack and getting a free ride thanks to the honest Tax payer that is footing the bill! Sheesh, talk about a catch 22.


Insurance companies drop people all the time. This is nothing new. If they don't drop them the will not earn profits and wall street will punish them for it. This is all about greed and corruption. They aren't looking out your their policy holders they are looking at trying to line their own pockets.

Oh well, maybe we all should just drop our health insurance and say "fuck it" until they can figure out a plan that works for everyone. I don't mind paying and I choose to pay with kaiser. I'm sure they drop people too tho, I haven't heard of it. Tho, I'm sure there are some loop holes in any plan. Just some a LOT worse then others.

I guess when you get old the best thing you can do is sign your house into a trust or sign it into a healthy kids name that you can TRUST. I have thought about this ... Anyone know of what to do with a house that is paid off so that greedy doctors and lawyers can't take it away from you?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Anyone know of what to do with a house that is paid off so that greedy doctors and lawyers can't take it away from you?

Stay in it when you are sick and don't go to the doctor. That's what you can do with that house.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ericlp
... Anyone know of what to do with a house that is paid off so that greedy doctors and lawyers can't take it away from you?

Can't you just file bankruptcy after the fact on the medical bills if you can't pay them? (Not giving justification for what the insurance companies are doing, just asking what bankruptcy isn't an option vs losing your home)?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think we should keep the current system but with the stipulation that anybody working in health insurance claims should have to have a special flag on their house and wear a badge so people will know who to spit on and where to dump their garbage.

Only anonymity allows these titanic assholes to make money on the backs of denying the sick health care.

Trust me. If they had to wear a badge there would be no way in hell that any company would insure them for anything.

But... This is a 'For Profit' entity, no?

What sense does it make for a health insurance company intending to make a profit to keep sick people as clients.
Only when only the Md's and the other providers care about the sick and get paid for that effort based on some criteria that enables the well and sick to co-exist with certainty for their future needs will we be a people who can claim the notion of humaneness.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

What sense does it make for a health insurance company intending to make a profit to keep sick people as clients.

What sense does it make for the client and their employer to pay huge premiums on "insurance," when the "insurance" goes away the moment it's no longer a "thanks for the payment, suckers" scam.

By the way, I'm setting up a cart at the mall, where I'll be selling insurance* against tiger attacks.


*Attacks by tiger void the insurance agreement per our policy.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: Patranus
Here is the deal. If you sign a contract that allows them to terminate it than that is your fault. READ WHAT YOU SIGN BEFORE YOU SIGN IT. If the company doesn't want to provide you the terms you want, go to a difference company.

Isn't capitalism great?

Sweet, please give me a link to affordable insurance with good coverage that has no termination.

Here.

Of course it's communist government insurance. And you have to be active duty or retired.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: LunarRay

What sense does it make for a health insurance company intending to make a profit to keep sick people as clients.

What sense does it make for the client and their employer to pay huge premiums on "insurance," when the "insurance" goes away the moment it's no longer a "thanks for the payment, suckers" scam.

By the way, I'm setting up a cart at the mall, where I'll be selling insurance* against tiger attacks.


*Attacks by tiger void the insurance agreement per our policy.

heheehe ok.. Growl..

Er's and Ee's pay for health care and we all think that it will see us through thick and thin... My point is to do with eliminating sick folks from the rolls if possible... it is the thing to do if the company wants to maximize its profits. Heheheh the incentive is to have only healthy non users enrolled, ergo, take out the profit motive and have government fund the short fall and just maybe more folks would get taken care of... heck.. scrap Medicare and enroll old folks.. like me.. :+) in Blue Cross... Well... I'd not opt for that... I've the best health care on Planet Earth... but for you all... yeah...

 

[RPD]

When was the last time our government, when it involved money came out in the black?

 

[spidey07]

This honestly sounds like VERY disingenuous journalism and reporting. The reporter is drawing a hole crapload of conclusions with no source (not surprised, it is the LA slimes).

If employees were rewarded on their review for saving the company money via canceling policies that should not have been canceled then OK, you have a point. Canceling polices that should have been canceled then you don't. But this article has nothing but conjecture and hearsay to push an agenda devoid of facts.

20,000 policies canceled over a 5 year period. 4,000 policies per year doesn't seem like such a big number anymore, now does it? WHY were they canceled?