So THAT'S why I need to stop insisting on "Formal Agreements." No wonder... Silly me. LOL
--Tod ---- wheelch...@aol.com wrote: > Informal Agreement, is actually a weeklong lavish vacations in warm climate > to discuss their set prices. > > > In a message dated 10/17/2009 2:26:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > sant...@cox.net writes: > > Hello Greg, Other Q's & Family, > > To me, the scariest (and frankly, most telling) so-called "news" about > health care insurance is the "news" of its history. I'm talking about the > recent reminder (instead of "news") that the Insurance Industry has been > exempt from Anti-Trust laws for the past 64 years!! > > Translation: As a group, Insurance Companies have been *allowed*, by a > 1945 law specifying a Federal exeption for them, to engage in deliberate > price fixing rather than actual capitalistic competition and supply/demand > sales. > > Insurance companies can limit their coverage to be within the borders of a > single state or a set of states. In several states, 80% or more of the > available Health Insurance is controlled by a single Insurance Company! > > In 1945, when this Anti-Trust Exemption began, it was intended to apply to > Life Insurance Companies. However, over time those Life Insurance > Companies began small-but-growing Health Insurance subsidiaries that, while > still > owned by Federally Protected Entities, proved to be quite profitable -- > especially if their charges weren't regulated by the Feds or by the ups and > downs of the Market but instead by informal "agreements" with other > companies > (so-called "Competitors") to charge similarly higher rates. > > This explains why Health Insurance costs --to those who can afford it-- > have risen at 4-times the rates of incomes, inflation and any other goods. > > For Example (quoting Greg): > > Insurance companies have asked courts for the right to dump people > > who have had catastrophic injures, AIDS, etc. because it costs them > > too much money, even though they have paid premiums for years. > > Clearly this system is broken. > > A Health Insurance Company in New York (The Guardian I believe) recently > discovered it was paying a lot --close to $1 Million this year-- for an > individual with Muscular Dystrophy. While I don't know this person's > particular circumstances (like were hospitalizations and sudden > deterioration > involved?), I do know the Insurance Company didn't want to pay his (her?) > bills > EVEN THOUGH premiums had always been paid in full and on time. > > SO, since they couldn't refuse this person a policy based on his/her > disability and the costs related --because terminating one person's policy > like > that would be discriminatory-- the Company's new policy beginning December > 1 will reportedly no longer cover anyone in the state with this level of > disability. > > And worse, based on the Anti-Trust laws, the New York courts had to uphold > the Insurance Company's decision!! > > Now the only hope for this person and everyone else affected by the > Company's greedy decision is that the Federal Health and Human Services > Department will step in to find some way to intervene. The problem, though, > is that > HHS will likely have to take matters to Federal Court and through each > level up to the Supreme Court and hope that at least a part of the > Anti-Trust > Exemption can be narrowed. Then, dependeding on Court decisions, it won't > be (or become) so much of a Free-For-All precedent for Other Insurers to > follow ... basically allowing Health Insurers to drop, or refuse to cover, > people who can pay premiums but have MD --and likely other disabilities to > follow (like us Quads). > > Greg is right. The system is broken. How to fix it...? Maybe removing > the Exemption? Maybe threatening to do so? Maybe removing just a portion > of it? Maybe it's the Public Option or maybe a "trigger" that Insurers can > choose to pull or not that would create that Option? Maybe it's Co-Ops? > > Maybe it's a combination of all of the above. But something... almost > ANYTHING... must be done to improve our health care system so it isn't just > a > "Care for the Healthy System." > > > Best wishes to All! > And if you reached this point, Thank You for reading my rant!!! > > Sincerely, > --Tod > > P.S. While I know Keith Olberman of MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith > Olberman" is a "raging/flaming liberal," ... I'm wondering... Did anybody > see his > 1-Hr Special Comment on Health Care in America? It ran last Wed., Oct. 7, > and was repeated yesterday, Fri., Oct. 16. While not perfect, he did have > some pretty solid points about the Industry and where the US stands > compared to overall world health (among a few other points). > > I was just curious who saw it and what they thought. > > As a result of this show, over $1 Million was raised (so far) to help > provide free Public Health Clinic for a day in the Capital Cities of the 6 > Democratic Senators in the Finance Committee who were outspoken against a > "Public Option." > > > > ---- Greg <g...@eskimo.com> wrote: > > I think profits are great I have a bit in the Market, but people's health > > and lives should not be decided by profit and loss. Those who don't > > want the government to make decisions seem to feel fine with an > > insurance company making the decisions on their health based on > > profits. People who work at insurance companies get bonuses if the > > decline services. They often decline services that are covered knowing > > a percentage of the people never ask for appeals. Insurance > > companies have asked courts for the right to dump people > > who have had catastrophic injures, AIDS, etc. because it costs them > > too much money, even though they have paid premiums for years. > > Clearly this system is broken. Even if some think it's a bad idea, I > don't > > understand why some are so viscous and even violent about it. Lets > > see, I feel like going out and causing trouble and fighting to support a > > company that will not take me if I have an injury, try to dump me if I > get a > > bad one, making record profits by deny services even if covered. Ya, I > > want to fight for those guys. I'm very disappointed with Obama so far. > > He needs to stand up instead of cowering to the Rep. Having just a > > National Medicare has to be better than this. Just because Canada's > > system might have its faults, doesn't mean we need to use that exact > > system. Have National Medicare for those who want it and those who > > want to can buy their own coverage. Although, maybe we shouldn't talk > > about this publicly. Someone from one of those Death Panels might > > see it. > > They might want to add quads to the Death List with old people. > > > > > > Greg > > > > >
