COMMENTS: 73
Criminal Health Care: My Experience in Insurance Company Hell
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
I have cystic fibrosis (CF), a serious genetic disease that primarily affects the digestive and respiratory systems. My lungs create excess mucus that is thicker than it should be. This means I am more susceptible to everyday lung infections -- such as the flu or pneumonia -- which can, in turn, be life-threatening.
Despite amazing advances in medical research over the last couple decades, the average person with the disease still does not live to see his or her 40th birthday. The best we can do is stick to long, arduous treatment regimens -- and trust, often in vain, that the U.S. medical system will help us do that.
Cystic fibrosis is a rare ailment; there are only about 30,000 cases in the United States. In business terms, this means that medicines used to treat CF are developed for a very limited market. And since insurance and pharmaceutical companies need to make their billions, the costs of the various drugs that I must take on a daily basis are insanely expensive. (Last spring, I calculated that my prescriptions cost more than $60,000 annually.)
That makes me a life-long cash cow for the drug companies and, paradoxically, an enormous liability for any insurance company -- one that ideally should be expunged as quickly as possible. Indeed, I'm the worst kind of member to have on the rolls: someone with a chronic illness whose medical expenses, as long as a cure remains elusive, will always be exorbitant. I show no profit potential.
Not surprisingly, then, navigating the health care system has never been easy for me. Even when the system is working as smoothly as it can, I have had to jump through countless hoops. Those are an unavoidable and exhausting part of this tortuous circus. But my experience in insurance company hell reached a new low last year. Last November, I spent weeks politely jostling my inept doctor's office and insurance provider to get one of my prescriptions filled. Nobody seemed to take me seriously or put any priority on my case, even as I stressed that I was quickly running out of my medicine. To my disbelief, I began to realize that I did not have intrinsic value in their eyes, but had effectively been reduced to a "member number" and data on their seemingly endless medical forms. And when your needs become too expensive -- since the price of life apparently can now be calculated -- the companies find every possible way to dodge their obligation, playing the role of absentee landlord or deadbeat dad to perfection.
The system's labyrinthine bureaucracy serves to diffuse responsibility for those who must do the dirty work and to demoralize those forced to navigate it. People who are caring and decent in their personal lives dispassionately read the scripted reasons why they are denying medicines -- which, for you, may literally mean the difference between life and death -- over the phone.
"That drug is not on our list," she says.
"We need more clinical proof that you need this medicine."
"The review can take up to 72 hours."
"I'm sorry, but that is our policy."
Armed with excuses, the barricades are erected. The refrain sung. Never mind that you have a valid prescription from a doctor on their plan. Never mind that he called to authorize it and filled out the requisite "medical necessity form." Never mind that you've been on that particular medicine your entire life. That is our policy.
At one point I was on the phone from the moment I woke up until the company's office closed for four days straight. I paid close attention to their complicated explanations for the hold up and tried my hardest to follow their instructions. Once one obstacle was cleared, new ones faithfully arose. Even making the financial argument that if I didn't get the treatment I would have to go to the hospital, which would be vastly more expensive for the insurance company, seemed to have no effect.
"I guess you should go to the emergency room then," I was callously advised more than once. Did they realize that they were talking to a real person about his health and not some trivial matter? Did they get what an utter waste of taxpayer dollars that would be?
Completely desperate, I spoke with a friend who is a lawyer. He was eager to take action. "I'm always ready for a good fight," he reassured. "We can send them a nastygram," he explained, which would put pressure on the company to resolve this before it gets ugly. His confidence and support put me at ease.
The following afternoon, an insurance representative called to say that the medical director had finally approved my treatment. There was no explanation. The extensive documentation that they had been demanding was, in the end, unnecessary, as I suspected. I rushed to the pharmacy. But by the time I was able to fill the prescription, I had already gone three days without it.
My fragile health was put at risk because some faceless suit wanted to save a buck and was testing to see how much of a fight I would put up. (I was told more than once by people who had their own horror stories with health insurance that companies hope you'll just give up. Whether it's true or not, that is definitely how it feels.) It was an emotionally exhausting process that I hoped I would never have to endure again.
Unfortunately the fight wasn't over. A couple weeks later, the insurance company rejected another medicine. It was déjà vu, except this time I was weary. I did not know if I had the stamina for another protracted fight. But when it comes to your health, you have little choice. I was forced to pick up the phone and make the exasperating calls all over again. After nearly two weeks of pleading -- with little to show for it -- I was at my wit's end.
In talking with a friend who is an expert on New York's different public health insurance programs, he said that he believed the company was technically in violation of the law. This was the final straw. With the confidence of someone who has nothing left to lose, I called the company and demanded an answer by the end of the day.
"I have spoken with a lawyer," I told them, "and I am ready to take action." Those magic words worked wonders. They snapped to attention and immediately began to work on my case. I even started receiving periodic updates by phone about their progress. It was as if I were talking to an entirely different company, one that actually cared about its customers. The about-face was striking. By the end of the day, I received a call from the representative I had been dealing with. "Go pick up your medicine," he said. "It has been approved."
My crisis was resolved, but what about the people who don't have my advantages? What about the immigrant, whose first language is not English? What about the mother who works two jobs while raising children? As a writer, I can generally make my own work hours. As an activist, I am accustomed to long battles and challenging the powers that be. I have important resources, including legal help, at my fingertips. But because the majority of people in need of government-assisted health care are poor, they rarely have such backgrounds or support networks. That leaves insurers in positions of complete power, able to ignore the cries of the poor with little fear of repercussions.
It could be different. Several years ago, while living and studying in Spain, I experienced one alternative. To get my medicines, I filled out paperwork for twenty minutes at a hospital in Valencia. Without further hassle, I was able to pick up the same name brand prescriptions that I take in the United States, at one-tenth of their cost. Even though I was not a citizen and did not pay taxes, the Spanish government graciously footed the rest of the bill. They simply have different priorities, one being taking care of whoever happens to live there.
With our great ingenuity, a better, more humane system is not out of reach. Health care should not be subject to the whims of profit-hungry corporations. It must be recognized as a universal human right. To put people through such tumultuous trials for a basic necessity is criminal. Life is difficult enough.
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Mar 10, 2008 1:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Rather wonder.....
Posted by: boydranchitos
» Canadian immigration is based on a point system!
Posted by: Bearzerker
» RE:Better Yet, Find, & Support Green Party
Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Better Yet, Find, & Support Green Party
Posted by: halg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hosscreations on Mar 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm in the same sinking boat!
Posted by: aethr
» More likely to develop a resistant infection...
Posted by: Cathyc
» Semantics . . . CF patients know their "resistance"
Posted by: MuddPi
» RE: I'm in the same sinking boat!
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: boydranchitos
» ask your local legal aid for assistance
Posted by: susanh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: heid on Mar 10, 2008 3:12 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oxymoron?
Posted by: AlterEg0
» RE: Oxymoron? AlterEg0 has hit the nail on the head!
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kww355 on Mar 10, 2008 7:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear now that many pharmaceutical companies are outsourcing a lot of their drug production to China. Why couldn't they outsource these more expensive drugs and so-called "orphan drugs" there so they could cut their costs on them?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The answer is simple.
Posted by: heid
» "Greedy bastards are they" -v- the Idiotic Masses!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: "Greedy bastards are they" -v- the Idiotic Masses! - That's right, blame the victims
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Mar 10, 2008 9:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, but it would be taxpayer dollars, not their profit dollars. In fact, the sooner you die the better it is for their profits. It's called capitalism and everyone knows that capitalism is the solution to all problems. You pay for a service and they make a profit by refusing to provide that service, just like any good capitalist enterprise.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Capitalism or Socialism? Which system to the People themselves want?
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Capitalism or Socialism? Which system to the People themselves want?
Posted by: anechoic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Mar 11, 2008 4:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my transplant team and I have gotten no where on this issue and because I do have drug coverage for everything else, do not qualify for PPA, or services from any other totally gutted state or federal health plan and I better not drop the insurance because then it will be seen as 'willfully' loosing insurance and there are penalties for that... having no way to pay the 6 month wait penalty and can't afford the $3,000.00 per month (climbing every day as I type due to more stuff needed while I wait for some knucklehead to add this drug to our policy) right now if the meds had to be paid for out of pocket... funny thing is that the extra meds cost more then the price of the single immunosupression drug I will need... go figure!!!
no specific drug, no transplant, that's the rules... battling insurance is almost a full time job around here too... cheaper for me to die then approving the rotten medicine...
enough griping, this article hit a nerve... back to coffee...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: not alone here....
Posted by: OakRaidFan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tweetybird on Mar 11, 2008 4:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I went to do my eligiablity review, the form they are demanding me to fill out is for people over 65 and going into a nursing home.I am not over 65 and am NOT going into a nursing home, at all. I refuse to sign it as it allows the state to put a lein on my home and can sell it WHILE I AM ALIVE. Then also they can take your house from your heirs as well. In the meantime I am without personal care attendants, and coverage for my medications. Write to your congressman as this is wrong and could happen to you and your loved ones.
We need a healthcare program that does not ride on talking people's home (what good is a health insurance if you are made homeless??), refuse to give them services, medications, etc, weather it be a government funded or privately run.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Forget about the State, they are your enemy!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: The state can take your home you live in if you need services from Medicaid!!
Posted by: tornadorider2002
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 11, 2008 5:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every year when notified of my new insurance choices by the US employer, I think about instructing them to save their money and cancel my coverage. However, not only might I need it someday, but taking money away from the insurer is not going to make them less greedy, is it?
My sons and granddaughter in California have nothing to rely on.
People who work for insurance companies can't afford to be sympathetic, can they? If they quit their jobs, their own health insurance would go with it.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "If it happens, it was planned".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I have health insurance but don't need it, my sons need it but don't have it
Posted by: bittershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildswan on Mar 11, 2008 7:02 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
swan
http://goodwordswan.wildflowerstew.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 11, 2008 7:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: carcinoid112
» The Green Party -- so-called Opposition, does not exist in a society controlled by Fascists!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: MuddPi
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: bittershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 11, 2008 7:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fortunately, a drug that was on the formulary worked well. Either I was not the only one to raise a stink or else my complaints worked, because now the pharmacist is no longer allowed to decide on prescribed medicine--so a new doctor told me.
I am willing to fight for what I deserve, but it sure gets tiresome.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Mar 11, 2008 8:54 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in America, even disease must make a profit!
The entire system has misplaced priorities and does not function well for ANYONE, except the insurance big-wigs who make obscene amounts. It should be criminal, but it's not. In fact, it's celebrated by the right wing as they erroneously call it the free market system! Poo. It's government and corporations colluding together to create a one-sided, unfair system that benefits the rich and hurts the sick. (Which is ALL of since everybody gets sick eventually.)
This is fascism folks....The American health care system is one of the worst in the world but you won't hear that fact on Fox News!
VideoProductionTips = Learn Internet Video
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pay close attention to Fox News - as you would, if you are ANY victim of violence!
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: B. Spoon on Mar 11, 2008 9:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» BIG PHARMA AND INSURANCE= EVIL MONOPOLY
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
» BIG PHARMA AND INSURANCE= EVIL MONOPOLY
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magiquarian1969 on Mar 11, 2008 9:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: NOT if Obama get's in
Posted by: Andie927
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Mar 11, 2008 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on Mar 11, 2008 10:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 11, 2008 11:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I almost fell into that "trap" myself. Most people don't make enough money to be able to afford it!
With a Single-payer Non-Profit Universal system, Everybody will get Basic, Essential healthcare, when they need it!! If you want the Extras, a Private Room, Chiropratic Care, access to Alternative medicine, you could buy a supplimental policey!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 11, 2008 11:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We could easily pay, Good salaries to every doctor, and nurse, hospital manager, and provide every citizen with Very Good essential, basic healthcare, and have money left over!!Just eliminate the Exorbinate Corporate Profits of Both the Insurance Co. and the For-Profit Hospital Owners!!
Why don't we have it now?? Because we have only Two Political Parties, Both of which are in the Corporate/Special Interests Pockets!!
We need at least a third party, maybe more.
How do we get them, and make sure they represent US not the Special Interest Big Money Backers of their campaigns??
Go to the Green Party web site!! Join, commit to $10 a month! Go to meetings! Support Public Campaign financing, and Instant Run-Off voting!
Every one of their candidates, are fully committed to Non-Profit Single-Payer Universal Healthcare!!
THAT'S HOW WE REALLY TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Please, Consider a Green Party Solution!
Posted by: halg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tapadance on Mar 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But get sick, get really sick, and your thrown to the wolves. Get a disease that is maybe genetically based, (lupus) and watch the insurance company try to dump you for your 'pre-existing' condition.
Watch the doctors who have not seen patients in years argue with a real doctor as to the treatment plan for a person they will never see.
I live near some of the best hospitals in the world. If you can afford them that is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cathyc on Mar 11, 2008 1:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Health Insurance (and other racketeers) companies are made up of parasites who are basically at war with their own people. Who in their right mind wants to do business with such cretins!
OK, so you're suffering from some life-threatening disease (eg Cystic Fibrosis) - but face it, The System/Establishment/Ruling Elite don't care about your predicament, even if you are paying health insurance (protection money) to them! You need to face up to the fact of your own personal history and ultimately, your own mortality - not least WHY you are now so dependent on those parasites for your existence. When you figure that out, you (and your offspring) will no longer need to rely on the predatory parasites that are the Health Insurance industry!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: America is in the throes of the last of The Empire mentality...
Posted by: dr_dredd
» RE: America is in the throes of the last of The Empire mentality...
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: America is in the throes of the last of The Empire mentality...
Posted by: tornadorider2002
» You're saying that because his ancestors behaved "badly", he got CF as a kind of moral punishment?!?
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: garciamukamuka on Mar 11, 2008 3:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama stands up and says "DENIAL FOR PROFIT MUST STOP NOW -- If you vote for me you'll pay 5% of your income instead of the 30% you're paying now. Nobody will get primary care in the emergency room. Nobody will be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Nobody will fear bankruptcy because their child got sick. We can just say no to the insurance companies. Yes we can. People vote their pocketbooks? He'll win in a landslide.
There is a bill that is floundering, an improved Medicare for All. Is YOUR representative behind it? The Conyers Kucinich Health Care bill is the fastest way to get there. House Bill HR 676. www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm. It even includes retraining insurance workers first.
Medicare doesn't include any young healthy people, it's like the opposite of what an insurance company wants.
The Clinton plan is just like we have here in Massachusetts. My premium just went up 30%, now I pay 20% of my income for coverage. It's a gift to the insurance industries and a personal threat to each and every one of us: fork it over or you die.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mjabele on Mar 11, 2008 5:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number of these forms I'm expected to complete has increased markedly since Massachusetts passed a law to cover the uninsured about a year ago, which works mainly by expanding participation in various private insurance plans, with Medicaid (MassHealth) as an "insurance of last resort" for those who don't meet minimum income requirements for the private insurers. As a result, many of my patients previously on Medicaid have recently been switched to one of the private plans.
Turns out that the private insurers, as a group, tend to have much less "generous" formularies than Medicaid, with the result that many of the medications my patients had been taking stably for years are no longer "allowed" by their new plans. In some cases I CAN keep them on their previous medications, but only by completing a "Prior Authorization" form - essentially a plea for "special permission" to use the desired drug - documenting that they had an adverse reaction or an inadequate therapeutic response to the new insurer's "preferred" drug at some point in the past. Sometimes this is easy to do, sometimes not - burrowing through a patient's chart in an effort to find documentation from years ago, when they were seeing a different provider or might even have been going to a different clinic (in which case the record might simply not be available), isn't always feasible or productive.
There are other "quirks" (idiocies, I should say). Sometimes patients were switched in the past from one medication to another due to a serious adverse reaction, such as rash, or stomach bleeding, or a cough. When such an event occurs, obviously there's no point in re-attempting treatment with the previous drug - yet even so, insurance companies routinely require providers to complete annual or biennial "renewal" requests in such cases, which serve no other purpose than to repetitively "re-document" an adverse reaction that's typically already been permanently annotated in the patient's clinic and pharmacy records.
In other cases, a patient fails to respond to a "basic" medication within a particular pharmaceutical class, but does better with a "second-" or "third-tier" medication for which the provider has previously obtained "special permission". When the patient switches (or is made to switch) insurance, however, the new insurer requires either 1) that the patient re-attempt the "basic" medication that he or she failed to respond to previously, or 2) mandates that the provider complete a new "special permission" form, i.e., reiterating the exact same therapeutic failure that was already documented on a different insurance form months or years before.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Further absurdities...
Posted by: tornadorider2002
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mjabele on Mar 11, 2008 5:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've certainly had patients whose access to medication was interrupted by the "Prior Authorization" process, including an elderly diabetic gentleman about a year ago who went without his insulin for almost a week because his new insurer covered Novolog 70/30 rather than the Humalog 75/25 which he'd been taking up to that point (different manufacturers, but essentially identical formulations). He subsequently presented to the ER with an episode of syncope (i.e., passing out), but fortunately recovered without incident. This week I'm dealing with a 75-year-old woman with a history of a chronic blood clot in the left leg, who failed "standard" treatment with warfarin several years back in Boston and was placed on "non-standard" treatment with injectable heparin. Her new insurer doesn't want to pay for the heparin, presumably because it's expensive. Beyond the fact that a recurrent clot in the leg will cause further swelling and pain, there's a significant chance that pieces of it could break loose and embolize (fatally) to her lung.
Personally, I support the idea of single-payer, government-sponsored health care. But, if the US is going to stick with its penchant for private-payer-based "solutions" to the health care crisis, at least a few simple, medically rational "rules" ought to be imposed on insurers to prevent flagrant abuses and actual endangerment of patient care:
1) There should only be one "universal" form for "Prior Authorization" requests for medication, which all private insurers MUST accept;
2) When patients switch (or are made to switch) from one insurer to another, their previous Prior Authorization approvals must "follow them" to the new insurer - i.e., insurers must be mandated to accept the Prior Authorization decisions of their "predecessors", at least for the term of the original approval;
3) When a patient has had an adverse reaction to a medication, or class of medications, and is consequently switched to a different drug, this adverse reaction must be documented PERMANENTLY with the current insurer, as well as all subsequent insurers, meaning that insurers are subsequently barred from requesting annual or biennial "re-documentation" of the adverse reaction and are mandated to stick with the second-tier medication;
4) Same as number 3), but with regard to the issue of inadequate therapeutic response - once such "treatment failure" has been documented once, insurers cannot mandate that the provider re-prescribe the previously ineffective medication, or force the provider to re-submit documentation of the previous inadequate response, even if the insurance company has changed;
5) During the period of time that a legitimately "deniable" medication may still be under review by the insurer, the insurer must pay for an amount of the originally prescribed medication to be dispensed to the patient sufficient to cover the period of time until the review is complete and the provider and patient informed of the result.
Readers can probably think of things to add, but it's a start.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No! Don't try to fix this immoral system, please!
Posted by: halg
» No problem...
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: No problem...
Posted by: garciamukamuka
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aimie72 on Mar 11, 2008 6:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: aimie and hopeless
Posted by: tornadorider2002
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ronheri on Mar 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Mar 12, 2008 2:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who; can we count on to correct this?
what; can you do to remedy it?
where; are we as a society on this issue?
when; will this be addressed?
why; are the politicians ignoring you?
and
how; can YOU solve it?
all because no one seems to be listening to this major election issue during this election cycle!
for shame...
people are dying for others greed, graft and profits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Mar 13, 2008 10:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also go through the same thing when I need services. Now I'm too the point the want all of us to be at, not even bothering to ask them or appeal anymore. For me being disabled, it's just too much hassle. Being legally blind too makes all of it even more difficult. It's hard enough dealing with serious illness, let alone all the denials insurance companoies dish out to us.
It's their job to deny benefits..we have to remember this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Mar 13, 2008 10:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also go through the same thing when I need services. Now I'm too the point the want all of us to be at, not even bothering to ask them or appeal anymore. For me being disabled, it's just too much hassle. Being legally blind too makes all of it even more difficult. It's hard enough dealing with serious illness, let alone all the denials insurance companoies dish out to us.
It's their job to deny benefits..we have to remember this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bryangalt on Mar 15, 2008 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think one easy fix to this problem would be to criminalize the actions taken by an insurance company if their actions are shown to cause the death of one of their clients. Yes, the company can still give their unlucky customers the run-around, but if that poor soul dies as a result, the person who signed that letter of service denial will be charged with 1st Degree Manslaughter, possibly even 2nd Degree Murder.
I suspect that we would hear that the insurance companies weren't having as much luck cutting people off or giving them the run-around if it now become a FELONY to purposely deny any services that result in the death of a patient.
What it comes down to is the money these companies are bilking us all for. Fine then. But, that life the insurance company wrote off as being cheaper to terminate will cost someone theirs too. Seems like a fair trade in a capitalist system gone wild.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: walldodger1969 on Mar 10, 2008 1:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Rather wonder.....
Posted by: boydranchitos
» Canadian immigration is based on a point system!
Posted by: Bearzerker
» RE:Better Yet, Find, & Support Green Party
Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Better Yet, Find, & Support Green Party
Posted by: halg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hosscreations on Mar 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm in the same sinking boat!
Posted by: aethr
» More likely to develop a resistant infection...
Posted by: Cathyc
» Semantics . . . CF patients know their "resistance"
Posted by: MuddPi
» RE: I'm in the same sinking boat!
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Wow.
Posted by: boydranchitos
» ask your local legal aid for assistance
Posted by: susanh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: heid on Mar 10, 2008 3:12 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oxymoron?
Posted by: AlterEg0
» RE: Oxymoron? AlterEg0 has hit the nail on the head!
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kww355 on Mar 10, 2008 7:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear now that many pharmaceutical companies are outsourcing a lot of their drug production to China. Why couldn't they outsource these more expensive drugs and so-called "orphan drugs" there so they could cut their costs on them?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The answer is simple.
Posted by: heid
» "Greedy bastards are they" -v- the Idiotic Masses!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: "Greedy bastards are they" -v- the Idiotic Masses! - That's right, blame the victims
Posted by: UnEasyOne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Mar 10, 2008 9:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, but it would be taxpayer dollars, not their profit dollars. In fact, the sooner you die the better it is for their profits. It's called capitalism and everyone knows that capitalism is the solution to all problems. You pay for a service and they make a profit by refusing to provide that service, just like any good capitalist enterprise.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Capitalism or Socialism? Which system to the People themselves want?
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Capitalism or Socialism? Which system to the People themselves want?
Posted by: anechoic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ellie on Mar 11, 2008 4:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my transplant team and I have gotten no where on this issue and because I do have drug coverage for everything else, do not qualify for PPA, or services from any other totally gutted state or federal health plan and I better not drop the insurance because then it will be seen as 'willfully' loosing insurance and there are penalties for that... having no way to pay the 6 month wait penalty and can't afford the $3,000.00 per month (climbing every day as I type due to more stuff needed while I wait for some knucklehead to add this drug to our policy) right now if the meds had to be paid for out of pocket... funny thing is that the extra meds cost more then the price of the single immunosupression drug I will need... go figure!!!
no specific drug, no transplant, that's the rules... battling insurance is almost a full time job around here too... cheaper for me to die then approving the rotten medicine...
enough griping, this article hit a nerve... back to coffee...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: not alone here....
Posted by: OakRaidFan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tweetybird on Mar 11, 2008 4:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I went to do my eligiablity review, the form they are demanding me to fill out is for people over 65 and going into a nursing home.I am not over 65 and am NOT going into a nursing home, at all. I refuse to sign it as it allows the state to put a lein on my home and can sell it WHILE I AM ALIVE. Then also they can take your house from your heirs as well. In the meantime I am without personal care attendants, and coverage for my medications. Write to your congressman as this is wrong and could happen to you and your loved ones.
We need a healthcare program that does not ride on talking people's home (what good is a health insurance if you are made homeless??), refuse to give them services, medications, etc, weather it be a government funded or privately run.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Forget about the State, they are your enemy!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: The state can take your home you live in if you need services from Medicaid!!
Posted by: tornadorider2002
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 11, 2008 5:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every year when notified of my new insurance choices by the US employer, I think about instructing them to save their money and cancel my coverage. However, not only might I need it someday, but taking money away from the insurer is not going to make them less greedy, is it?
My sons and granddaughter in California have nothing to rely on.
People who work for insurance companies can't afford to be sympathetic, can they? If they quit their jobs, their own health insurance would go with it.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "If it happens, it was planned".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I have health insurance but don't need it, my sons need it but don't have it
Posted by: bittershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildswan on Mar 11, 2008 7:02 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
swan
http://goodwordswan.wildflowerstew.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 11, 2008 7:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: carcinoid112
» The Green Party -- so-called Opposition, does not exist in a society controlled by Fascists!
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: MuddPi
» RE: Describes Green Party Platform!!
Posted by: bittershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 11, 2008 7:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fortunately, a drug that was on the formulary worked well. Either I was not the only one to raise a stink or else my complaints worked, because now the pharmacist is no longer allowed to decide on prescribed medicine--so a new doctor told me.
I am willing to fight for what I deserve, but it sure gets tiresome.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Mar 11, 2008 8:54 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in America, even disease must make a profit!
The entire system has misplaced priorities and does not function well for ANYONE, except the insurance big-wigs who make obscene amounts. It should be criminal, but it's not. In fact, it's celebrated by the right wing as they erroneously call it the free market system! Poo. It's government and corporations colluding together to create a one-sided, unfair system that benefits the rich and hurts the sick. (Which is ALL of since everybody gets sick eventually.)
This is fascism folks....The American health care system is one of the worst in the world but you won't hear that fact on Fox News!
VideoProductionTips = Learn Internet Video
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Pay close attention to Fox News - as you would, if you are ANY victim of violence!
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: B. Spoon on Mar 11, 2008 9:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» BIG PHARMA AND INSURANCE= EVIL MONOPOLY
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
» BIG PHARMA AND INSURANCE= EVIL MONOPOLY
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magiquarian1969 on Mar 11, 2008 9:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: NOT if Obama get's in
Posted by: Andie927
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Mar 11, 2008 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on Mar 11, 2008 10:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 11, 2008 11:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I almost fell into that "trap" myself. Most people don't make enough money to be able to afford it!
With a Single-payer Non-Profit Universal system, Everybody will get Basic, Essential healthcare, when they need it!! If you want the Extras, a Private Room, Chiropratic Care, access to Alternative medicine, you could buy a supplimental policey!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 11, 2008 11:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We could easily pay, Good salaries to every doctor, and nurse, hospital manager, and provide every citizen with Very Good essential, basic healthcare, and have money left over!!Just eliminate the Exorbinate Corporate Profits of Both the Insurance Co. and the For-Profit Hospital Owners!!
Why don't we have it now?? Because we have only Two Political Parties, Both of which are in the Corporate/Special Interests Pockets!!
We need at least a third party, maybe more.
How do we get them, and make sure they represent US not the Special Interest Big Money Backers of their campaigns??
Go to the Green Party web site!! Join, commit to $10 a month! Go to meetings! Support Public Campaign financing, and Instant Run-Off voting!
Every one of their candidates, are fully committed to Non-Profit Single-Payer Universal Healthcare!!
THAT'S HOW WE REALLY TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Please, Consider a Green Party Solution!
Posted by: halg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tapadance on Mar 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But get sick, get really sick, and your thrown to the wolves. Get a disease that is maybe genetically based, (lupus) and watch the insurance company try to dump you for your 'pre-existing' condition.
Watch the doctors who have not seen patients in years argue with a real doctor as to the treatment plan for a person they will never see.
I live near some of the best hospitals in the world. If you can afford them that is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cathyc on Mar 11, 2008 1:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Health Insurance (and other racketeers) companies are made up of parasites who are basically at war with their own people. Who in their right mind wants to do business with such cretins!
OK, so you're suffering from some life-threatening disease (eg Cystic Fibrosis) - but face it, The System/Establishment/Ruling Elite don't care about your predicament, even if you are paying health insurance (protection money) to them! You need to face up to the fact of your own personal history and ultimately, your own mortality - not least WHY you are now so dependent on those parasites for your existence. When you figure that out, you (and your offspring) will no longer need to rely on the predatory parasites that are the Health Insurance industry!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: America is in the throes of the last of The Empire mentality...
Posted by: dr_dredd
» RE: America is in the throes of the last of The Empire mentality...
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: America is in the throes of the last of The Empire mentality...
Posted by: tornadorider2002
» You're saying that because his ancestors behaved "badly", he got CF as a kind of moral punishment?!?
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: garciamukamuka on Mar 11, 2008 3:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama stands up and says "DENIAL FOR PROFIT MUST STOP NOW -- If you vote for me you'll pay 5% of your income instead of the 30% you're paying now. Nobody will get primary care in the emergency room. Nobody will be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Nobody will fear bankruptcy because their child got sick. We can just say no to the insurance companies. Yes we can. People vote their pocketbooks? He'll win in a landslide.
There is a bill that is floundering, an improved Medicare for All. Is YOUR representative behind it? The Conyers Kucinich Health Care bill is the fastest way to get there. House Bill HR 676. www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm. It even includes retraining insurance workers first.
Medicare doesn't include any young healthy people, it's like the opposite of what an insurance company wants.
The Clinton plan is just like we have here in Massachusetts. My premium just went up 30%, now I pay 20% of my income for coverage. It's a gift to the insurance industries and a personal threat to each and every one of us: fork it over or you die.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mjabele on Mar 11, 2008 5:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number of these forms I'm expected to complete has increased markedly since Massachusetts passed a law to cover the uninsured about a year ago, which works mainly by expanding participation in various private insurance plans, with Medicaid (MassHealth) as an "insurance of last resort" for those who don't meet minimum income requirements for the private insurers. As a result, many of my patients previously on Medicaid have recently been switched to one of the private plans.
Turns out that the private insurers, as a group, tend to have much less "generous" formularies than Medicaid, with the result that many of the medications my patients had been taking stably for years are no longer "allowed" by their new plans. In some cases I CAN keep them on their previous medications, but only by completing a "Prior Authorization" form - essentially a plea for "special permission" to use the desired drug - documenting that they had an adverse reaction or an inadequate therapeutic response to the new insurer's "preferred" drug at some point in the past. Sometimes this is easy to do, sometimes not - burrowing through a patient's chart in an effort to find documentation from years ago, when they were seeing a different provider or might even have been going to a different clinic (in which case the record might simply not be available), isn't always feasible or productive.
There are other "quirks" (idiocies, I should say). Sometimes patients were switched in the past from one medication to another due to a serious adverse reaction, such as rash, or stomach bleeding, or a cough. When such an event occurs, obviously there's no point in re-attempting treatment with the previous drug - yet even so, insurance companies routinely require providers to complete annual or biennial "renewal" requests in such cases, which serve no other purpose than to repetitively "re-document" an adverse reaction that's typically already been permanently annotated in the patient's clinic and pharmacy records.
In other cases, a patient fails to respond to a "basic" medication within a particular pharmaceutical class, but does better with a "second-" or "third-tier" medication for which the provider has previously obtained "special permission". When the patient switches (or is made to switch) insurance, however, the new insurer requires either 1) that the patient re-attempt the "basic" medication that he or she failed to respond to previously, or 2) mandates that the provider complete a new "special permission" form, i.e., reiterating the exact same therapeutic failure that was already documented on a different insurance form months or years before.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Further absurdities...
Posted by: tornadorider2002
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mjabele on Mar 11, 2008 5:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've certainly had patients whose access to medication was interrupted by the "Prior Authorization" process, including an elderly diabetic gentleman about a year ago who went without his insulin for almost a week because his new insurer covered Novolog 70/30 rather than the Humalog 75/25 which he'd been taking up to that point (different manufacturers, but essentially identical formulations). He subsequently presented to the ER with an episode of syncope (i.e., passing out), but fortunately recovered without incident. This week I'm dealing with a 75-year-old woman with a history of a chronic blood clot in the left leg, who failed "standard" treatment with warfarin several years back in Boston and was placed on "non-standard" treatment with injectable heparin. Her new insurer doesn't want to pay for the heparin, presumably because it's expensive. Beyond the fact that a recurrent clot in the leg will cause further swelling and pain, there's a significant chance that pieces of it could break loose and embolize (fatally) to her lung.
Personally, I support the idea of single-payer, government-sponsored health care. But, if the US is going to stick with its penchant for private-payer-based "solutions" to the health care crisis, at least a few simple, medically rational "rules" ought to be imposed on insurers to prevent flagrant abuses and actual endangerment of patient care:
1) There should only be one "universal" form for "Prior Authorization" requests for medication, which all private insurers MUST accept;
2) When patients switch (or are made to switch) from one insurer to another, their previous Prior Authorization approvals must "follow them" to the new insurer - i.e., insurers must be mandated to accept the Prior Authorization decisions of their "predecessors", at least for the term of the original approval;
3) When a patient has had an adverse reaction to a medication, or class of medications, and is consequently switched to a different drug, this adverse reaction must be documented PERMANENTLY with the current insurer, as well as all subsequent insurers, meaning that insurers are subsequently barred from requesting annual or biennial "re-documentation" of the adverse reaction and are mandated to stick with the second-tier medication;
4) Same as number 3), but with regard to the issue of inadequate therapeutic response - once such "treatment failure" has been documented once, insurers cannot mandate that the provider re-prescribe the previously ineffective medication, or force the provider to re-submit documentation of the previous inadequate response, even if the insurance company has changed;
5) During the period of time that a legitimately "deniable" medication may still be under review by the insurer, the insurer must pay for an amount of the originally prescribed medication to be dispensed to the patient sufficient to cover the period of time until the review is complete and the provider and patient informed of the result.
Readers can probably think of things to add, but it's a start.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No! Don't try to fix this immoral system, please!
Posted by: halg
» No problem...
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: No problem...
Posted by: garciamukamuka
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aimie72 on Mar 11, 2008 6:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: aimie and hopeless
Posted by: tornadorider2002
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ronheri on Mar 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bearzerker on Mar 12, 2008 2:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who; can we count on to correct this?
what; can you do to remedy it?
where; are we as a society on this issue?
when; will this be addressed?
why; are the politicians ignoring you?
and
how; can YOU solve it?
all because no one seems to be listening to this major election issue during this election cycle!
for shame...
people are dying for others greed, graft and profits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Mar 13, 2008 10:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also go through the same thing when I need services. Now I'm too the point the want all of us to be at, not even bothering to ask them or appeal anymore. For me being disabled, it's just too much hassle. Being legally blind too makes all of it even more difficult. It's hard enough dealing with serious illness, let alone all the denials insurance companoies dish out to us.
It's their job to deny benefits..we have to remember this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cherylholmes on Mar 13, 2008 10:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also go through the same thing when I need services. Now I'm too the point the want all of us to be at, not even bothering to ask them or appeal anymore. For me being disabled, it's just too much hassle. Being legally blind too makes all of it even more difficult. It's hard enough dealing with serious illness, let alone all the denials insurance companoies dish out to us.
It's their job to deny benefits..we have to remember this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bryangalt on Mar 15, 2008 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think one easy fix to this problem would be to criminalize the actions taken by an insurance company if their actions are shown to cause the death of one of their clients. Yes, the company can still give their unlucky customers the run-around, but if that poor soul dies as a result, the person who signed that letter of service denial will be charged with 1st Degree Manslaughter, possibly even 2nd Degree Murder.
I suspect that we would hear that the insurance companies weren't having as much luck cutting people off or giving them the run-around if it now become a FELONY to purposely deny any services that result in the death of a patient.
What it comes down to is the money these companies are bilking us all for. Fine then. But, that life the insurance company wrote off as being cheaper to terminate will cost someone theirs too. Seems like a fair trade in a capitalist system gone wild.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




