So if the health reform bill passes, insurers will be required to accept everyone with pre-existing conditions. BUT.... the bill doesn't actually force insurers to treat those patients....hmmmm...None of the new reform bills restrict in any way a insurers ability to deny procedures....

source/articles from NY Times

Health Reform Could Mean More Treatment Denials
None of the current bills force insurers to actually treat patients
Posted Oct 19, 09 10:00 AM CDT in Business, Science & Health, Politics | Share Share

(Newser) – Health care reform would force insurers to accept everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions; but it wouldn’t actually force them to treat those patients. None of the reform bills pending on Capitol Hill would restrict insurers’ ability to deny procedures for their customers, the LA Times reports. In fact, because they’ll have to take on sick patients, insurers will likely turn down even more claims as a way of controlling costs.

“There are going to be a lot of denials,” one former insurance exec said. “I am not setting insurance companies up to be villains. But we are telling them to bend the cost curve. How else are they going to” do that? Currently, most patients have no legal recourse if they’re denied coverage. The House bill would allow those on government-purchased insurance to sue in such cases, but those on employer-provided care would remain powerless.
—Kevin Spak
Source: Los Angeles Times

can you direct me to the passage in the bill that says that an insurance commpany having been paid premiums would not be required to fullfill their obligations in the contract? copy and paste here will work. only the actual bill though. LA times does not make laws in this country.

doesn't really matter what the bill says yet

it just barely made it out of committee and now it goes to the floor of the House and Senate and there it's gonna inevitably get all sorts of pet projects and riders and pork attached to it so who knows what the finished version will look like

of course. point being, we voters are often ignorant of the issues. we base our opinions on other peoples opinions and often faulty or biased annalysis of others, most often in the media. have to wonder how many people who appose this or other bills actually read the bill. politicos win when people make the issue an article in the LA times as apposed to actually understanding the issue itself which in this case is the frigging bill.

Don't you have that backwards....direct me to the passage in the bill that actually requires insurers to treat pre-existing conditions.

"None of the reform bills pending on Capitol Hill would restrict insurers’ ability to deny procedures for their customers" - show me in the bill where that is false.

but i never claimed that the bill requires insurers to treat pre-existing conditions. you made the claim that insurers would not be required to treat patients according to the bill. if that's so it should be a simple matter to substantiate your claim. i've not read the bill so i'd never claim that insurers would be required to treat pre-existing conditions.



as i said, i've not read the bills. i do know enough about insurance law to say that ensurers have the ability to deny procedures now as per the contract. not uncommon in the least. don't get me wrong, i'm not an obama fan and definately skeptical about socialized medicine. but i also don't allow the media to interpret potential legislation for me to form an opinion. you brought this issue up when the bill is barely out of commitee. what it says now is unlikely to be the end product. but as i say, you brought it up so where in any bill does it say that insurers would not be required to treat patients as they agree in the plan for which they receive premium payments as you claim in your op? you made the claim, i made no claim, so you inherit the burdon of proof. the LA times won't do that for you.

The doctors treat patients. The insurance cartels dont do anything but profit from sickness and death

Who pays the bill if someone needs surgery or has a prolonged stay in a hospital? The doctor or the insurance company?

Yeah, mmm, where can I get a copy of this bill as well.. not that I could possibly have the time and interest to read the WHOLE Thing, like most people wouldnt. Bills are very long and detailed and we do get too many 'interpretations' from the media based upon partial truth.

The family who goes bankrupt after they get dropped by their insurance company when their child comes down with lukemia or muscular distrophy

What about all the unborn children that are coming into the world without healthcare? They should not be left to die. Choose Life

Oh look what I found,, the overview of the bill FROM the government,,


Guaranteed coverage and insurance market reforms. Insurance companies will no longer be able to engage in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew policies today due to an individual’s health status. In addition, they can no longer exclude coverage of treatments for pre-existing health conditions. The bill also protects consumers by prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits. It also limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to health status, gender, or other factors. Under the proposal, premiums can vary based only on age (no more than 2:1), geography and family size


So I guess the plan DOES address refusal of treatment and not just refusal of policies....

for those who wish to read the government summary for themselvs....

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BILLSUMMARY-071409.pdf

Get a clue it will never happen and if so it will bankrupk this country. Maybe thats what the dems want. They tryed it in Maine and they went bust.

The doctors treat patients. The insurance cartels dont do anything but profit from sickness and death


has that happened to you or anybody you know? in the last decade insurance companies have paid out well over a million dollars for my family's health related procedures alone. i personally know many people who would be bankrupt today had insurance companies not fulfilled their obligations under their policies. but of course that's just my experience. why don't you look up the number of cases where a paid up policy was canceled by the insurance company because they did not want to pay for a procedure not excluded from the policy and got away with it legally. see if you can find just one court decision where all premiums were current and the insurer failed to honor the contract. the names of the litigants will do. i'll read the court findings myself.

of course this is only a summary but it clearly does not give insurance companies the right to cancel a paid up policy because of a covered procedure. laws protecting consumers from such practices have been on the books for years in every state. good job on finding the summary. if you want to read the actual bill just go to uscongress.gov and peruse the list of pending bills in the house, an HB number, or the senated, SB number.

So what you are saying is that if you have an accident go to the hospital the insurance company automatically drops you? If that is the case I would doubt there would be any insurance companies. Who the hell would pay a couple of grand a year if they knew they were going to get dropped?

Nice Try..