Should We Oppose Any Effort To Outlaw Post-Claim Rescission If No Public Option?

TomCADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:20 PM
Original message

Should We Oppose Any Effort To Outlaw Post-Claim Rescission If No Public Option?

Post-claim rescission is the practice by insurance companies to revoke coverage after a person has paid their premiums based on an often unrelated inaccuracy in their insurance application. For example, person is in an accident, gets seriously injured, but the insurance companies then revokes coverage based on the failure to disclose treatment for acne.

If there is no public option, should we oppose any efforts to outlaw this practice in order to keep up pressure of single payer down the road?

What is the best approach tactically?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Umbral

(969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message

1. Outlawing that sounds like something the insurance companies wouldn't like...

I don't think the current Congress could get behind that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

nadinbrzezinski

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:27 PM
Response to Original message

2. Look up the Swiss system... all private, all highly regulated

they want to play that game. well the swiss regulate all including payments for procedures, fees and all that.

Oh and the corps make SOME profits, but nothing as insane as they do here. Funny, some of our companies work in Switzerland too. Perhaps the German system, also highly regulated

Of course our bought and paid congress....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mindwalker_i

(836 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:28 PM
Response to Original message

3. Don't outlaw recision

Just pass a law that if an insurance company decides to drop coverage because of an error on the application, they have to pay back all the premiums plus interest, AND they have to cover the current issue since they did not notify the insured of the error previously. Actually, I wonder if a class-action lawsuit could get through on the basis that the insurance companies defrauded customers by willfully accepting money beforehand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

uponit7771

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-03-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #3

13. Paying back someone 7k over 10 years is still on 70k dollars and wouldn't cover serious

...injuries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rug

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:29 PM
Response to Original message

4. Well, there's a mouthful to rally around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jackpine Radical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message

5. Why not have Rahm ask the insurance companies what would be acceptable to them?

Wouldn't want to ruffle the feathers of any big contributors, now, would we? Max Baucus and that whole crowd need to get re-elected, ya know

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

prairierose

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message

6. That would be good too but...

how do people with pre-existing conditions get health insurance that is affordable? How do our businesses become competitive in the world again if they are still responsible for their employee's health insurance?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TomCADem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-02-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Some States Only Allow Post-Claim Recession If The Error Is Directly Related To The Claim

This would be a great improvement in that it helps ensure that if you have insurance that you actually do have insurance, rather than a worthless piece of paper with the insurer relying on some innocuous error some day to revoke your coverage when you need it most. However, this still falls far short of a public option. So, do we call a moratorium on any reforms short of medicare as a public option?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

shimmergal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-03-09 12:35 AM
Response to Original message

8. Failing a public option,

we need to sneak in some poison pill provisions that any insurance company that receives govt. subsidies has to adhere to a whole list of limits....so onerous that they'll eventually want to get out of the health ins. business.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sebastian Doyle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-03-09 01:00 AM
Response to Original message

9. What we should outlaw

Is ANY insurance company, hospital, clinic, or pharmaceutical company operating as a for-profit business.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SpartanDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-03-09 01:53 AM
Response to Original message

10. No without public option we should be looking regulations to add

rescission is already of the thing both the house and senate bills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

harun

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-03-09 09:20 AM
Response to Original message

11. There will be a solid Public Option or there will be NO reform. House

won't pass anything with that stripped out. Count on it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

uponit7771

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-03-09 09:49 AM
Response to Original message

12. YES!!! The HCI's will go bankrupt in less than a decade if that can't recede

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:15 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.