Use It And Lose It
Our Insurance OverLords might have made a tactical error yesterday while testifying before a House Committee, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.
The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. [Emphasis added]
The executives all claimed that the rescissions were done as part of a drive to cut down on fraud, but the legislators weren't buying that particular brand of baloney, at least not in public. And the executives, who obviously feel their industry remains in control of any attempt to reform health care, refused to back down, even when asked point blank if they would halt the practice of rescission (collecting premium payments until the policy is used for expensive treatment, at which point the original applications are suddenly examined carefully and the policy cancelled when some minor discrepancy is found) except in cases of intentional fraud. All three men indicated that they would not.
How's that for chutzpah? Either the insurance industry knows that it's running the show because it owns even the 111th Congress, or it is staffed by idiots who don't realize how damaging such public statements are. My guess is that it's both, but at least now all the cards are on the table and, miracle of miracles, a major news outlet reported it.
If nothing else, that testimony embarrassed some of the Republicans on the committee enough that they were forced to summon some outrage on the issue and to put that outrage on the record. Just as importantly, that testimony just gave more impetus towards the public plan the insurance industry wants to desperately to quash. At least one Democrat on the committee seized the moment:
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.
"This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said. [Emphasis added]
Preach it, my brother!
Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.
The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. [Emphasis added]
The executives all claimed that the rescissions were done as part of a drive to cut down on fraud, but the legislators weren't buying that particular brand of baloney, at least not in public. And the executives, who obviously feel their industry remains in control of any attempt to reform health care, refused to back down, even when asked point blank if they would halt the practice of rescission (collecting premium payments until the policy is used for expensive treatment, at which point the original applications are suddenly examined carefully and the policy cancelled when some minor discrepancy is found) except in cases of intentional fraud. All three men indicated that they would not.
How's that for chutzpah? Either the insurance industry knows that it's running the show because it owns even the 111th Congress, or it is staffed by idiots who don't realize how damaging such public statements are. My guess is that it's both, but at least now all the cards are on the table and, miracle of miracles, a major news outlet reported it.
If nothing else, that testimony embarrassed some of the Republicans on the committee enough that they were forced to summon some outrage on the issue and to put that outrage on the record. Just as importantly, that testimony just gave more impetus towards the public plan the insurance industry wants to desperately to quash. At least one Democrat on the committee seized the moment:
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.
"This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said. [Emphasis added]
Preach it, my brother!
Labels: 111th Congress, Health Care, Insurance Companies
posted by Diane at 3:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home