WellPoint CEO enjoys healthy 51% pay hike

[Pens1566]

Did I miss a rebuttal of Potter?

 

[nonlnear]

Did I miss a rebuttal of Potter?

I am one of the first to say I agree serious changes need to be made regarding insurability - especially regarding individually purchased plans. I'm sure most readers in this thread take me for a universal apologist when nothing could be further from the truth.

As for "purging", I see no problem with it. (Alleged) price inflation is no different than what Mattel does with Barbies or Bed Bath & Beyond does with cheap knick-knacks. If one company inflates its prices too high, and customers leave as a result, that is exactly what should happen. It's a beautiful symphony. The only problem is the many structural impediments to true competition which - shockingly - were largely unaddressed in the recently enacted law.

As to Potter's epiphany about the gold-rimmed china with a gold-plated knife and fork on a private jet:

"I realized for the first time that someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to travel in such luxury," he said on his blog.

The same could be said about the luxuries on Air Force One at the expense of the taxpayers. How often do you hear a President say that out loud? Luxury often comes hand in hand with power. That's life. Anyone who pretends that it's somehow "striking" to observe that simple fact is probably trying to fake a certain ethos...

 

[Fern]

Oops... you're right. I meant severance package. But if a CEO comes in and runs the company into the ground such that it gets taken over, wouldn't that trigger the golden parachute clause as well?

Depends how it's written, but that's not the intent (to reward crappy performance).

Generally, it's a good thing to be acquired by another corporation. They usually pay a pretty hefty premium for the stock price. So, golden parachutes are there to encourage the CEO to work towards that even if it means (s)he will otherwise lose their jobs.

Now, if the company is doing crappy I don't think the GP would come into play. First it shouldn't be written to allow that. Second, you can fire/dismiss the CEO for 'cause' so it doesn't. Third, a hefty GP would discourage anyone from buying a crappy company because in effect the purchaser has to pay the money for the GP or keep the crappy CEO on as an employee. In the latter instance that GP would be acting like a 'Poison Pill' (they are used to discourage hostile take overs).

But Yes, we've seen examples where the exec's severance package looked waaay too generous under the circumstances.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

I guess targeting women sick with breast cancer for policy cancellation (attempted murder in my book, but that's just me) really paid off for that bitch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36711197/ns/health-health_care/

Tens of thousands lost insurance after diagnosis
That tens of thousands of Americans lost their health insurance shortly after being diagnosed with life-threatening, expensive medical conditions has been well documented by law enforcement agencies, state regulators and a congressional committee. Insurance companies have used the practice, known as "rescission," for years. And a congressional committee last year said WellPoint was one of the worst offenders.

But WellPoint also has specifically targeted women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent to cancel their policies, federal investigators told Reuters. The revelation is especially striking for a company whose CEO and president, Angela Braly, has earned plaudits for how her company improved the medical care and treatment of other policyholders with breast cancer.

 

[CycloWizard]

I guess targeting women sick with breast cancer for policy cancellation (attempted murder in my book, but that's just me) really paid off for that bitch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36711197/ns/health-health_care/

This is Obama's job - to enforce laws. If they broke the law, arrest them. Why is that so hard?

 

[theeedude]

This is Obama's job - to enforce laws. If they broke the law, arrest them. Why is that so hard?

Yes, it's the government's fault that private sector breaks the law.

 

[theeedude]

And ObamaCare law bans such rescission. Republicans want to repeal it so this piece of scum Angela Braly can resume personally profiting from leaving sick women to die without coverage they paid for.

 

[CycloWizard]

Yes, it's the government's fault that private sector breaks the law.

No, it's government's fault that companies get away with breaking the law. I'm not sure how you think passing more and more laws does any good when the ones already on the books are being broken left and right. An unenforced law isn't worth the paper it's printed on, unless it's used as a political football.

 

[theeedude]

No, it's government's fault that companies get away with breaking the law. I'm not sure how you think passing more and more laws does any good when the ones already on the books are being broken left and right. An unenforced law isn't worth the paper it's printed on, unless it's used as a political football.

Well, ObamaCare law banned these rescissions, period. So yes, passing more laws did a lot of good against this practice. Of course, now comes time for strict enforcement, I am sure Republicans are going to do their best to defund that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Well, ObamaCare law banned these rescissions, period. So yes, passing more laws did a lot of good against this practice. Of course, now comes time for strict enforcement, I am sure Republicans are going to do their best to defund that.

It would be fraudulent for them to do this for improper reasons before. Why wasn't the law enforced? That seems to be the real problem here. Banning the process altogether is just going to enable fraud in the other direction because patients have no reason to be honest in their applications for coverage. Once they receive coverage, they can never lose it, even if they lied on the application. I suppose this is all well and good if you are trying to drive insurance companies out of business.

 

[theeedude]

It would be fraudulent for them to do this for improper reasons before. Why wasn't the law enforced? That seems to be the real problem here. Banning the process altogether is just going to enable fraud in the other direction because patients have no reason to be honest in their applications for coverage. Once they receive coverage, they can never lose it, even if they lied on the application. I suppose this is all well and good if you are trying to drive insurance companies out of business.

Because previous law is too ineffective to be enforced, companies know they save enough money denying coverage and sending people to an early grave than they pay in fines. This piece of human waste CEO that you are defending is a fine example. Insurance companies need to do their due diligence before they take people's premium money, not after those people get sick. And yes, I'd rather insurance companies go out of business than kill people by denying them coverage when they need it most.

 

[CycloWizard]

Because previous law is too ineffective to be enforced, companies know they save enough money denying coverage and sending people to an early grave than they pay in fines. This piece of human waste CEO that you are defending is a fine example. Insurance companies need to do their due diligence before they take people's premium money, not after those people get sick. And yes, I'd rather insurance companies go out of business than kill people by denying them coverage when they need it most.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt a cap on fines for fraud are low enough to justify this sort of thing. I challenge you to prove me wrong. This is the entire basis for your argument, so prove it.

edit: Since I doubt you will, I did it for you. Source: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...white-collar-crime/health-insurance-fraud.htm

There are both state based and federal based penalties for health insurance fraud. Most states have insurance fraud statutes applicable to health insurance fraud. These statutes usually define the crime as a felony, which carry significant fines which can be more than $15,000.00 and lengthy prison terms of more than ten years. Additionally, there are many federal based laws applicable to health insurance fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes are frequently triggered. Such laws carry tremendous penalties, with fines up to $1,000,000.00 and prison terms of up to thirty years. Moreover, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO&#8221 statute may apply. Under RICO, fines, imprisonment of up to twenty years, forfeiture of proceeds gained from the activity, and other types of penalties may be imposed. Finally, if the fraud involves Medicare, the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback statutes may apply.

 

[theeedude]

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt a cap on fines for fraud are low enough to justify this sort of thing. I challenge you to prove me wrong. This is the entire basis for your argument, so prove it.

edit: Since I doubt you will, I did it for you. Source: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...white-collar-crime/health-insurance-fraud.htm

This is targeting providers, not insurers. You have to prove yourself right, not challenge me to prove you wrong.

 

[CycloWizard]

This is targeting providers, not insurers. You have to prove yourself right, not challenge me to prove you wrong.

No, you made the claim that fines are insufficient to deter fraud. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[theeedude]

No, you made the claim that fines are insufficient to deter fraud. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

Well, if existing laws and fines were sufficient, why did the fraud continue? It's not a claim, it's reality, buddy. The burden of proof is on you that stricter enforcement would have made a difference.

 

[CycloWizard]

Well, if existing laws and fines were sufficient, why did the fraud continue? It's not a claim, it's reality, buddy. The burden of proof is on you that stricter enforcement would have made a difference.

It continued because of a lack of enforcement. Congress only decided to investigate them when it would be beneficial to the passage of the new healthcare bill. That's clearly stated in the article you posted.

 

[theeedude]

It continued because of a lack of enforcement. Congress only decided to investigate them when it would be beneficial to the passage of the new healthcare bill. That's clearly stated in the article you posted.

Or maybe the previous administration had no interest in enforcing the laws. Health reform law makes it a lot harder for insurers to drop anyone, period. Now the burden of proof is on them that patient intentionally committed fraud, they don't get to just drop patients when they are sick under BS pretenses if it makes business sense.

 

[CycloWizard]

Or maybe the previous administration had no interest in enforcing the laws. Health reform law makes it a lot harder for insurers to drop anyone, period. Now the burden of proof is on them that patient intentionally committed fraud, they don't get to just drop patients when they are sick under BS pretenses if it makes business sense.

Neither administration had any interest in stopping fraud. The new law should be perfectly simple: once an insurance company accepts money for a policy, the coverage lasts until the client stops paying. If the company hasn't done its due diligence before accepting the money, then it's too late and screw them.

 

[theeedude]

Neither administration had any interest in stopping fraud. The new law should be perfectly simple: once an insurance company accepts money for a policy, the coverage lasts until the client stops paying. If the company hasn't done its due diligence before accepting the money, then it's too late and screw them.

That is part of ObamaCare that Republicans want to repeal wholesale.

 

[CycloWizard]

That is part of ObamaCare that Republicans want to repeal wholesale.

If that's what was actually implemented, and incorporates appropriate methods to prevent fraud on the other side of the equation, then good.