Did you know your insurance company might cancel your policy if you’ve developed a serious condition, but, in good faith, omitted a previous minor, unrelated treatment?
Witnesses testified, that after having paid on an insurance policy for years, their coverage and claims were denied for virtually “any reason”, whether related or unrelated to the condition (e.g. having been treated for acne).
Watch the video to see these companies’ responses when asked if they would commit to no longer rescinding policies as a result of unrelated minor omissions!
Once you’ve seen enough of their shady practices, please provide feedback to your lawmaker, or click here to visit NCPIRG.org.
Under the current healthcare environment:
If you develop a condition (anything), you may not be able to change insurance companies; Your current insurer knows this, and can essentially set any rate they want, or drop you altogether and/or potentially refuse the coverage you’ve been paying for.
Essentially, like many credit card contracts, they can change the terms, for any reason, at any time; forget your previous “agreements”
Insurers know that if you are forking over funding for the healthcare you insured, you probably can’t afford legal assistance (sound like credit-card-company “sweatboxing”*?)
* Sweatboxing is a practice of credit card companies, where they raise rates and fees, so as to put the borrower in a position of “not being able to escape”. This model is based on the premise that the borrower will continue to pay on interest and fees, for as long as possible, without having the ability to fully pay the debt – essentially forcing the borrower to pay an endless, after-the-fact stream of income to the lender.
The new budget submitted by the Obama Administration extends that to $1.8 trillion. That means the changes and additions to the budget come to “only” $500 billion, or .5 trillion more that what was inherited. Not bad, considering the first round of TARP funds sought and approved by the Bush Administration was $700 billion, alone.
Let’s make this simple. The Government should not provide needless handouts for healthcare, but should protect against financially-catastrophic health issues.
If everyone pays a portion of their care at the time-of-service, we discourage the “any-reason” doctor’s visit. Further, with limited government-subsidy, families have some protection against financial catastrophe for unique medical situations.
According to Senator Dodd’s Website, “Sen. Dodd’s bill will push for at least six weeks of paid leave for the worker to care for themselves, their children, and immediate family members. The program would be funded by a shared-cost mechanism, involving the employer, the employee and the Federal Government.”…
…“Now more than ever, millions of workers need to be able to take care of their young children and their aging parents. No worker should be penalized for caring for their family.”
Opinion: Let’s put this bill on hold and address the universal-health-care issue? Currently, these ‘millions of workers’ Dodd refers to are tied to their jobs not because of paid-leave, but because they need their employer’s health care. Surely, employers would be happy to offer funded-leave-time, if they had alternatives to cover health-care costs in a fashion similar to most developed and developing countries.