Lawsuit alleges insurance companies are at fault for cancellations.

Millions of insurance policies are being canceled across the nation, and while companies are blaming Obamacare – it appears that plain old greed is the real reason. Consumers in California say that their insurance company caused their cancellations, to jack up their premiums under the ACA. Paul Simon and Catherine Corker are suing Anthem Blue Cross in their state, claiming that the company tricked them into giving up their “grandfathered plans” - which they could have kept even after the healthcare law.

Their lawsuit states, “Blue Cross concealed information about the consequences of switching plans and intentionally misled its policyholders to encourage the replacement of grandfathered policies.” Just like President Obama said, if these customers liked their healthcare plans, they could have kept them under the healthcare law. But, Blue Cross enticed customers to change policies in 2011, which meant their plans were no longer “grandfathered-in” to the healthcare law.

When they were invited to switch plans, customers were not told that they would lose their right to keep their plans, and were not given accurate information about future price increases. And now, Mr. Simon and Ms. Corker want the courts to stop Blue Cross from canceling more plans without allowing customers to switch back to their original policies. If this happened in California, we can only wonder how many more cancellations are the result of the same deceptive tactics.

Comments

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 9 years 4 weeks ago
#1

Kend, I'm not buying it. The very idea that the quality of healthcare available to people should be contingent upon the amount of money they have, or whatever circumstances they are born into, is offensive to me. Certain things we all need, just to live & function, belong in the commons where they belong to us all. Nobody and nothing can change my mind on that, so don't waste your time trying. - Aliceinwonderland

Kend's picture
Kend 9 years 4 weeks ago
#2

Alice you didn't answer my question. Why stop in America? Is it you don't think healthcare is a "right" all over the world? It is just a right in America I guess.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 9 years 4 weeks ago
#3

It is a right around the worlc already, Kend, while the United Natiions declared healthcare a human right. As to your question, the world isn't structured that way with each country running independently. Another one of your silly questions.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 9 years 4 weeks ago
#4

But Kend, buying an insurance policy is gambling. So is putting your money down on Wall Street Casinos. And both are rigged against us. So why play the game? Why make the house richer. So, really, you are gambling as well.

I do agree, however, that there are those people who do throw their money away at actual Casinos or on the State Lotteries. Some may even lose big time in starting their own business that failed.

I even have relatives that have tastes far richer than their wallets can afford. They are always trying to live way above their means...always complaining that they don't have any money...yet they buy expensive things... late model snazzy cars. I hate it when relatives do that...expecting handouts...when I saved and I don't live beyond my means. So, I do empathize, somewhat, with what Kend is saying.

And I do agree that there are many people who live very unhealthy lives ...smoking ...drinking ...poor choice of food ...illegal drugs. They have a choice but through their very bad attitudes and laziness and bad life-style choices should, in my opinion, be penalized for their actions. I agree...why should people who work hard and save and live healthy lifestyles bail out those who do not?

But don't get the idea from my remarks that I agree that everyone who makes a lot of money should get off the hook. Many of those who make a lot of money do so in sneaky and devious ways of taking unfair advantage of others. They should be penalized for being too greedy.

Many people at the top of the economic pie can well do without all their excessive discretionary income and years of unfair tax breaks since Reagan. Many of the reasons why so many people at the lower end of the economic pie have done so poorly is not because they don't want to work. They just don't want to work for slave wages. They know when they are being shafted.

I heard this story about a man who went from his economically depressed country to work for 5 years in another country. He was able to go back to his country after 5 years and completely paid for a house that he would never have been able to pay off in a lifetime in his own country. What American wouldn't do the same thing? If he could pay off his mortgage in 5 years...would they not do it? People just don't want to work for slave wages that will not make a difference. And when they are constantly blasted with all that marketing propaganda they are being cheated out of reality.

There has been a concerted effort by employers to reduce wages and benefits since Reagan. Add to that the marketing psychological ploys that the rich use to make people believe the misinformation they shovel out. They entice us all to buy, buy, buy and give the illusion that, like many wealthy people, as shown in movies on TV and the Cinema, that money will come easy. But, actually, for many wealthy people, it was not an illusion..the money did come easily for many. Many inherited their money and used that as a tool to make even more money. All they have to do is be sneakier and more devious than the suckers they steal from.

Do rich really believe that they will actually need all the money they have amassed to live a very good life before they die? And why do they really think that they are doing their children any good by leaving a vast fortune for them to squander.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 9 years 4 weeks ago
#5

Kend ~ A worldwide health care system is a great idea. However the economic foundation that would make that a reality is a ways off. However it is a worthy goal and one worth shooting for.

As far as the idea of paying for someone elses medical bills are concerned that is exactly the reason why it needs to be done out of tax money. Everyone--or at least almost everyone--pays taxes. Most people are taxed multiple times--income, property, sales, etc. With every dollar spent contributing a percentage to the pie everyone shares more of the burden.

If you think you deserve more, you are more than welcome to chose the doctor of your choice and pay any outstanding difference out of your own pocket. We should always encourage people to save their money and stay healthy. That's the entire idea behind the system. (IE You don't have to get sick or injured to get your investment back like you do with for profit Health Insurance.)

Quote Palindromedary:And I do agree that there are many people who live very unhealthy lives ...smoking ...drinking ...poor choice of food ...illegal drugs. They have a choice but through their very bad attitudes and laziness and bad life-style choices should, in my opinion, be penalized for their actions. I agree...why should people who work hard and save and live healthy lifestyles bail out those who do not?

Palindromedary ~ I couldn't disagree more with that. It is precisely the people in these groups you've mentioned that need health care more so than any other group of healthy people. A small investment here to change these habits and lifestyles early on can save our society--our Medicare for all pot of gold--billions of dollars in future medical expenses. All these problems are a result of involuntary addictions and poor education more so than choice. I say not only should we advocate covering these people; but, we should encourage or even insist that they take advantage of programs to treat their dependencies. We as a society are only as good as we treat the least valued amongst us. If we can't manage to take care of ourselves and each other how can we ever manage to take care of anything else?

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 9 years 4 weeks ago
#6

Apropos to #57

Palindromedary ~ I know what you are going to say next; so, here is the answer. Legalize all those vices including drugs and impose a very high society redemption tax. Earmark 100% of that revenue for Medicare for all. That way these vices can "pay as you go" for themselves and the future medical needs for those people who "Chose" the path of self-deterioration regardless of available resources to discontinue the destructive behaviors. In fact, the revenue can also help to finance those resources available to individuals who "Chose" to change that behavior. I think that funding Medicare for all would be a far better thing to do with drug money then enrich international criminal cartels. Would that be an acceptable alternative to healthy taxpayers footing the whole bill for the bad decisions of others?

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 9 years 4 weeks ago
#7

Marc, I so agree. The issue concerning unhealthy lifestyle, in the context of healthcare costs, isn't so daunting. The answers, not so complicated. Those who'd prefer to keep the status quo - (not you, PD! I know...) - often bring this up. In my opinion, this is a non-issue. Like many other non-issues, it gets stirred up by the fascist corporate noise machine to keep us agitated, divided and distracted. It's what they do. Let's not forget that.

Look, people- minus the profit factor, healthcare will be a lot cheaper. No more bureaucrats drawing a paycheck just screening out those needing healthcare and those too poor to pay! The amount of paperwork and administrative crap that would be eliminated, let alone the cost of all that, is simply enormous. And bye-bye, middlemen! Remember, folks: when healthcare is in the commons, you've got just one entity negotiating with Big Pharma, which gives that entity tons of bargaining power. Then guess what! Big Pharma won't be so big and powerful anymore. I don't know about you, Global & Kend, but I'll be dancing in the streets. With many others, I'm sure.

I remember a time when doctor bills were no big deal for working families. We didn't even have single payer in the fifties & sixties, when I was growing up; yet healthcare was WAY more affordable back then. Why? Because it was non-profit! And health insurance companies were regulated, non-profit entities. I've seen it with my own eyes! Yep, if it happened once it can happen again.

Some people are locked into very unhealthy habits. Oh well. Frankly, I think we need to get out of the mindset of penalizing folks for this, that and everything. People are manipulated through advertising, peer pressure and so forth, to take up things like smoking & drinking, which often leads to addiction. Instead of bitching & whining, gullt-tripping these people for what they're costing us, villifiying them for their bad habits ad nauseam, why not create ways to support them breaking free of those habits? People often need help overcoming addictions. Imagine clinics staffed with medical professionals and therapists, available to everyone as part of a tax-supported healthcare system! Such facilities could pay for themselves with the money saved in health costs and so on.

This "I've-got-mine" mentality that has so many of us in a tither over who pays for whose healthcare is just a big waste of time, propped up and stoked by the corporate fascist noise machine. ("Liberal media" - yeah right!) I just can't get over the ignorance of so many, over issues this important. It's a depressing reminder of the power the media has, to manipulate public opinion. Just this vast fog of misinformation, obscurring reality.

Everyone paying into a universal system would save so much money. I pray the ACA will be the first big crack in that wall of greed, keeping many of us healthcare deprived for so long... some with disasterous consequences. - Aliceinwonderland

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 9 years 3 weeks ago
#8
An article by Physicians For A National Health Care Program

Quote 'Medicare for All' would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study:Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Quote 'Medicare for All' would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study:Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

Quote 'Medicare for All' would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study:“These savings would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to our health system, including the achievement of truly universal coverage, improved benefits, and the elimination of premiums, co-payments and deductibles, which are major barriers to people seeking care,” he said.
Quote 'Medicare for All' would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study:Over the next decade, the system’s savings from reduced health inflation (“bending the cost curve”), thanks to cost-control methods such as negotiated fees, lump-sum payments to hospitals, and capital planning, would amount to an estimated $1.8 trillion.
Quote 'Medicare for All' would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study:Friedman said the plan would be funded by maintaining current federal revenues for health care and imposing new, modest tax increases on very high income earners. It would also be funded by a small increase in payroll taxes on employers, who would no longer pay health insurance premiums, and a new, very small tax on stock and bond transactions.

“Such a financing scheme would vastly simplify how the nation pays for care, restore free choice of physician, guarantee all necessary medical care, improve patient health and, because it would be financed by a program of progressive taxation, result in 95 percent of all U.S. households saving money,” Friedman said.

Friedman’s findings are consistent with other research showing large savings from a single-payer plan. Single-payer fiscal studies by other economists, such as Kenneth E. Thorpe (2005), have arrived at similar conclusions, as have studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accountability Office in the early 1990s. Other studies have documented the administrative efficiency and other benefits of Canada’s single-payer system in comparison with the current U.S. system.

Friedman’s research was commissioned by Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit research and educational organization of more than 18,000 doctors nationwide, which wanted to find out how much a single-payer system would cost today and how it could be financed.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

For the details of this plan see this link:

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 9 years 3 weeks ago
#9

Kend ~ If that doesn't answer your question you need to go back to school and relearn English.

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 9 years 3 weeks ago
#10

Kend - READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE. Medicare For All; endorsed by a professor of economics, no less! And that is how we will pay for it, my friend. If you truly want answers, here they are! No need to ask that question, ever again... unless you're just being rhetorical and don't care about the answer! - AIW

P.S. Marc, thank you!!

Aliceinwonderland's picture
Aliceinwonderland 9 years 1 week ago
#11

Duplicate comment eliminated.

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Today, we are closing Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
Robert Greenwald, political activist and founder and president of Brave New Films
From Screwed:
"The powers that be are running roughshod over the powers that OUGHT to be. Hartmann tells us what went wrong — and what you and I can do to help set American right again."
Jim Hightower, National Radio Commentator, Writer, Public Speaker, and author of the bestselling Thieves in High Places
From Cracking the Code:
"In Cracking the Code, Thom Hartmann, America’s most popular, informed, and articulate progressive talk show host and political analyst, tells us what makes humans vulnerable to unscrupulous propagandists and what we can do about it. It is essential reading for all Americans who are fed up with right-wing extremists manipulating our minds and politics to promote agendas contrary to our core values and interests."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community and When Corporations Rule the World and board chair of YES! magazine