Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

eridani

(51,907 posts)

25. True, but neither piece of legislation addresses claims denial

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:43 AM

Jan 2013

The whole point is to have expensive patients die while they are on appeal. Even when the insurers lose here, they win, because any sanctions are vastly cheaper than expensive sick people.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CA health insurance exchange gets $674-million federal grant [View all] eridani Jan 2013 OP

Just think how little 674 million is in relation to healthcare madville Jan 2013 #1

The committees organizing the exchanges will have the expertise-- eridani Jan 2013 #2

State-based single-payer is the way forward Chathamization Jan 2013 #21

The subsidies seem pretty good - that is if you don't make too much in salary flamingdem Jan 2013 #3

The subsidies are for the insurance companies, not for health care eridani Jan 2013 #4

but they can't keep more than 15-20% of premiums CreekDog Jan 2013 #5

That will not stop them from denying claims eridani Jan 2013 #7

Wrong, it's not PNUP CreekDog Jan 2013 #6

Link eridani Jan 2013 #8

i don't know why you misnamed the organization and left out the link CreekDog Jan 2013 #9

I'm glad they're spending serious money on a marketing campaign, because pnwmom Jan 2013 #10

thanks for the info pnwmom! n/t flamingdem Jan 2013 #11

I'd rather they spent serious money on actual heatlh care eridani Jan 2013 #12

No, for the first time they must limit administrative costs, pnwmom Jan 2013 #13

They are absolutely free to deny claims eridani Jan 2013 #14

They tried, but failed, to stretch the definition of medical services pnwmom Jan 2013 #15

They are busy redefining "administrative costs" right now eridani Jan 2013 #16

Claims denial may be legal, but if it isn't upheld it won't serve any purpose pnwmom Jan 2013 #17

The insurers do not have to give a shit what customers think of them, as they are de facto eridani Jan 2013 #18

Did you forget that people will also have access to at least two federal options? pnwmom Jan 2013 #19

After they have been bankrupted? Not useful n/t eridani Jan 2013 #20

The first appeal must take place within 72 hours. Why are you so certain pnwmom Jan 2013 #22

That is a huge joke. Google Nataline Sarkisian eridani Jan 2013 #23

A major difference in Obamacare vs. Romneycare is that Obamacare pnwmom Jan 2013 #24

True, but neither piece of legislation addresses claims denial eridani Jan 2013 #25

You say, "true," but act as if that isn't even a significant point. pnwmom Jan 2013 #26

Their motivation would be that they have to deal with a huge backlog of cases eridani Jan 2013 #27

You're just speculating. There is no huge backlog of cases because pnwmom Jan 2013 #28

No speculation at all. The behavior of insurance companies w respect to paying claims is well known eridani Jan 2013 #29

Their past behavior is not predictive in this case, because until now pnwmom Jan 2013 #30

I find your faith in insurance companies.....disturbing eridani Jan 2013 #31