Insurers Tell Congress: Hell Yes! If You're Sick, We're Pulling Your Insurance Coverage
By Susie Madrak Wednesday Jun 17, 2009 4:00pmThis is what happens when you don't allow real competition into the picture. It's also what happens when you have a for-profit healthcare system:
Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.
The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.
It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
Isn't that lovely. Blue Cross is here for you!
"No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact," said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. "There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact."
The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.
But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.
Experts said it could undermine the industry's efforts to influence healthcare-overhaul plans working their way toward the White House.
"Talk about tone deaf," said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive who now counsels companies as a consultant.
Login or Register to post comments.
They are not in business to provide health care!
They are in business to make profits.
The less health care, the more profits.
...go figure.
... that is one way of providing less health care, isn't?
when Corporates began sneakily buying up hospitals and creating a Medical Oligarchy without anyone noticing what was going on.
No one is in business to help you, they are all in business to make money. I've been saying that here for a long time. Banks aren't in business to make you rich or even profitable, they too are in business to make money.
I am from Canada where our health care is free. It sometimes works (minus some parts due to politicians who can afford to buy treatments that ordinary people can not). So, being an outsider, I am confused as to why a contract can not be enforced. Whether taking a company to court with a contract where you bought a red widget and got a blue widget, or insurance where you bought cancer coverage and got no coverage, why is this different? Can someone explain why a court, at the first level, doesn't automatically enforce a contract?
The usual health insurance strategy is then, quite literally, to run out the clock. They delay and delay, and file for extensions -- and all the while, you get closer and closer to dying.
Upon occasion the patient wins and treatment is mandated by the court. But all too often, it's too late. You've become too sick for that bone marrow transplant, or the cancer has already spread to your bones, or your liver is already shutting down.
The difference, Brucew, is it's a matter of life and death, whereas for the insurance company it's purely profit/expense.
Brucew, something even many Americans don't realize is that insurance companies can make a person wait 6 months for treatment of a "pre-existing condition" when that person finally does get coverage. That means that, even if you have a really good group plan through an employer (like what public schools provide employees) or you obtain insurance through something like my state has-- a medical insurance pool for people who were denied coverage (because of the "pre-existing condition"), the insurer will not pay for any treatment for that condition until the policy holder has had coverage for 6 months. It doesn't matter what the condition is: diabetes, cancer, whatever. I believe in some states legislation has been passed to eliminate this rule, but not in mine. It is perfectly legal for the insurance company to make a person wait 6 months. Imagine how many people suffer needlessly or have conditions worsen as a result-- or how many must die (thus, the insurance company has received 1-6 months of premiums from the person but not had to pay anything out). I am American and I don't understand the greed and selfishness in my country.
I too live in Canada and I could not imagine the horrors my friends in the states go through.
I've gone to the hospital a few times. I come in with a stomach issue, and you will probably wait a bit.. Maybe as long as 3-4 hrs after you have see the triage nurse. That can be annoying. However, I walked in with a chest issue and once with a pulled neck and I was not even stopped. They know possible signs of anything nasty and they put people in order to not let anyone die.
I'll take it over even the THOUGHT of not being covered for anything.
Well there you have the reason we need single payer.
obama says 'if he were starting from scratch, he'd choose a single-payer system'. i think many, many people consider the "system" broken and, therefore, meaningful reform can and should equate to total over-haul... that is, single payer.
keep these stories coming and the people will only be too willing to down-size away the jobs of these callous, sociopathic middle-managers!
Agreed. Obama's 'can't start from scratch' excuse is as lame as any republican's. Fact is, he wouldn't have to start from scratch if he simply expanded Medicare for all.
And, worst case, if we had to start from scratch, why should that be an impediment to fixing the a terribly broken and parasitic system in the most humane and cost-effective way? The sad answer is that the fix is in and obama's fine with it.
if we die. They want our MONEY. So they can pay for their lawn parties, trips to Europe and ensure the financial perpetuity of their pampered spawn.
your point is ... ?
(well, that didn't work, it was supposed to be a reply to the previous comment)
As I posted in an earlier thread, ABC, the network holding this "sit-down-with-Obama" charade, has already decided that *ANY* kind of public option--single payer or otherwise--will be too expensive...because Republicans say so:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=78...
The fix is already in.
Nothing like greedy, corrupt executives being themselves in front of both parties of Congress.
At least they were courteous.
You assure the nice congresspeople that you're not going to do anything bad anymore, and then, when the coast is clear, you can go back to condemning people to death or ruination in the name of your yearly bonus. Maybe they know the fix is in so deep that they don't have to lie... .
while we're on the subject?
So, in other words, the medical insurance industry is perpetuating a fraud on consumers? Shouldn't these executives be arrested?
That would be the case where i am from. Sounds like fraud to me.
All the Republican fear mongering about long lines, delays, denial of services .. that's the way it is NOW !!!
YouTube: Ryan Grim on MSNBC "People want health care that doesn't suck .."
cuz obama's plan is too good for them to argue with
now, its that the fed is so big...private insurers wont be able to compete
isnt that sad?
If they can't compete in "the free market," then they should:
a) offer better services so people aren't denied care;
or
b) shut the hell up and close up shop.
Not surprising though. And they've gotten away with it for so long that it has become expected. Young people have not known any other medical system. But, I can remember a time that I could go to the doctor and not have to call my insurance company for "pre-approval" but not a guarantee of coverage.
And that CoOP system that the Repubs keep touting? It isn't any better. Having been a part of one about 15 years ago, every time I talked about a procedure with the doctors, they always tried to talk me out of it even if it would have been the best course of action.
our house. This was obviously before the U.S. Corporate Death Star was completed.
Robin Williams salary to get a pre existing condition fixed?
You know, those people who intentionally lie to get coverage do so because they couldn't get coverage otherwise. How do these greedy bastards suggest that such people with pre-existing conditions get coverage at all????
I heard Rush frgn' limpballs today for a few minutes. A Canadian called in to give the drug addict an example of how bad the Canadian system is.
He cited a newspaper article about a young guy in his 30s who was diagnosed with a certain type of stage IV melanoma. Apparently, the only place in the world (at least in North America) to get treatment for this type of cancer is in Detroit.
After going through 2 months of the process, the cancer patient (from Canada) was approved to get treatment in New York....but not in Detroit.
Limpballs went nuts. He said the key word was "approval."....the government had to "approve" the patient's treatment, and even though treatment was approved, it wasn't properly approved since he couldn't get to Detroit. Limpballs said this is what our health care would look like if Obama's plan goes through. He said that that Canadian cancer patient was essentially handed a death sentence.
First of all, if the story is true, I feel for that cancer patient. But, secondly, apparently the Canadian government approved treatment in the United States. Do U.S. insurance companies approve treatment in other countries?
Lastly, I wonder if the Canadian system (or any other "socialist" country's system) actually cancels coverage because someone is too sick, as insurance companies here in the U.S. do? Aren't people in the United States currently being handed "death sentence," even if they have coverage but then lose it?
This really pisses me off!
The Real News interviewed several Canadians about their health care system, and one or more of them mentioned going to the US (at Canadian Government Health Insurance expense) for treatment.
And the Guardian UK had a series on UK health care a couple of years ago, reporting that the British Health Care System sends patients to other countries for treatment - notably to France.
to send patients to other countries where the centers that offer the required treatment are located, if a local alternative does not exist. That usually pertains to very experimental treatments.
That even extends as far as sending patients, all expenses paid, to American research hospitals.
However, the difference is that over there it is called "health care" not "profit care."
Did anyone else see the TV special about Farrah Fawcett's fight with cancer? She is Stage IV and the docs at UCLA told her they couldn't do surgery to remove a tumor she had-- she ended up going to Germany for surgery and many treatments. Obviously, she and Ryan O'Neal can afford this. But I don't think she would still be alive today if she hadn't left the US for treatment. Granted, she still has Stage IV cancer-- but she bought herself more time. So, why do people still insist America has the best health care in the world?
In America that patient would have only been diagnosed after his autopsy, if ever.
If lucky, he would have lost his coverage after some paper=pusher discovered that he had a family history of dieing.
If not lucky he would have been uninsred in the forst place because he could not afford it.
I'm a U.S. citizen living in Atlanta. I attended elementary and high school in Vancouver, B.C., and my parents, one a Canadian citizen and the other a U.S. citizen/landed immigrant, lived in greater Vancouver until 2 years ago, when they moved to Las Vegas. I have several comments:
(1) I think it's safe to say that Rush Limbaugh's show is replete with false statements and manufactured "facts," and thus is untrustworthy in its entirety. Rush is not above using plants.
(2) Notwithstanding the lies propogated by some members of Congress and the U.S. insurance industry, Canadian healthcare is a pretty sweet deal for citizens. Make no mistake -- you are taxed for it. Health care costs add about 10% more to Canadian taxes. But you'd pay that money in the form of a premium in the U.S. anyway, and the public financing rules mean that you don't have to haggle with an insurance company over whether a procedure is covered.
(3) Additionally, optional/non-life threatening procedures, e.g., knee replacements, hip replacements, rotator cuff surgeries, etc., are delayed while patients are sent first to physical therapy in order to determine whether the surgery is necessary. But if you need a procedure you get it, and physical therapy for joint problems should always be the first option, as even arthroscopic procedures compromise the integrity of the joint. I had knee surgery in my teens in Vancouver, and I had to wait 3 weeks, instead of the week typical in the U.S.
(4) Wait times in U.S. emergency rooms are at least as long as those in Canadian emergency rooms.
(5) My parents waited to move stateside for one reason, and one reason only -- Medicare. Both of my parents have had surgical procedures in the last five years, and my mother smokes, although not much these days. My parents understood that attempting to secure private coverage in the U.S. with previous ailments/afflictions without the safety net of Medicare was impossible.
(6) You don't get cut off in Canada for preexisting conditions. Everyone is covered, so nobody can be excluded. Hell, you can enroll in a methadone-treatment program if you're a heroin addict. That's the kind of comprehensive assistance afforded by the Canadian social system.
(7) You can choose any doctor you like. Any claims to the contrary are outright lies.
I pulled this link for anyone interested. The arguments made by the author are cogent, straightforward, and accurate, if my first-hand experience is any barometer.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusti...
I lived in The Netherlands for 4 years, and while I had very limited experience with health care there, what I saw looked good to me.
I had to see a doctor I think twice in those 4 years. I got in the same day and got prescriptions as well. In fact, one of those "prescriptions" really wasn't a "prescription"....the doctor told me to pick something up which was over the counter and which I found out later you could not get here in the U.S.
Secondly, a Dutch friend of mine was diabetic. She had to go to the hospital twice in the 4 years I was there. She got right in. Her only complaint was that she couldn't get a private room.
Heck, last summer, my brother was seriously ill and had to have an operation here in the U.S. He had great trouble getting a "private" room. Twice, after my parents complained, he was moved to a room with no one else in it....but soon after, another patient arrived.
You're absolutely correct about Rush not being above using "plants"....I wouldn't doubt if that Canadian caller was such a plant.
American citizens visiting Canada receive better health care than they would in their own country (US). I have talked to a couple of people who had to have emergency treatment there-- one friend broke a leg during a visit to Canada-- and were not even billed. In America, the first question asked of anyone going to any hospital or clinic is, "Do you have insurance?" and if not, "How will you be paying for this?"
I wondered if the the hippocratic oath was changed recently to say that you can do harm if it's too expensive to treat someone.
At least with the government option, we have the power to get rid of the bastards who stop people from getting necessary care. We have no such chance with those controlling the care we get from insurance companies and such.
As it is right now, if it weren't for the government run VA Hospitals, my dad would probably not be with us any longer because he would not have gotten the early diagnosis and care he got for his cancer. He's got a clean bill of health now though thanks to the government care.
If they want to not force the insurance companies to compete against the government (which means THE AMERICAN PEOPLE), then we're screwed. So far, Obama has less than impressed me with his policy. This "let's be bipartisan" crap is just that - CRAP! We had 6 years about of straight forward Republican policy. That was such a success right? So let's consult these people and get them to agree with a plan too by putting in their bad ideas as well.
I honestly don't know what the administration is thinking anymore.
...trap being set by universal health care opponents. We need to stop even talking about a "public option". It won't work and it will get watered down to the point where most of those in the plan will be those the insurance company turn down for pre-existing conditions thereby making it more expensive to run.
We have to stay with UHC as the ONLY reform we're willing to accept. Anything less is just allowing the insurance industry to drag the debate into a rat hole.
Excellent Chart Comparing Single Payer to Public Option (thanks to the League of Women Voters):
Single Payer v. Public Option Chart
Found here:
Single Payer Action
"Well unfortunately, reverend, you opted for our no claim policy, which if you never 'ave to claim is very worthwhile, but well, you 'ad to claim, and well there you are..."
For epidemiologists, 1% constitutes an epidemic. It's huge.
It shouldn't happen to even 1 person.
Not even a Republican.
... most of the insurance companies' risk models usually expect less than 6% of insured "clients" to exercise their policies at any given time. Which turns that 1% into a virtual denial of coverage of 20% of clients who require coverage at that specific time.
I assume whoever came up with the expression "the devil is in the details" had situations like these in mind....
I am tired of all this health care talk. Someone call me when a poor, ex-student as myself can have health care, even when not employed, because let me tell you, its hard to afford even food when you can find a job, let alone afford health care.
Screw em, my brother had a referral to a thoracic surgeon to biopsy a mass in his chest. Got referred to an oncologist, got rounds of chemo and radiation, numerous scans & bloodwork before and after treatment, spent many weeks in house at the world class Cross Cancer Institute in AB here. His cancer is in remission and if it ever comes back he'll access to the best care including experimental treatments developed through stem cell reasearch and who knows what else and as far as I know he did not pay a single fricking copper penny out of his pocket because in Canada the collective tax base contributes equally for all who have medical needs.
Nationalise health care America, rap those greedy insurers right on the knuckles HARD!
...comparison. If Canada spent as much on defense as we do, you wouldn't be able to have your health care either. *snark*
Anyone else hear Michael Medved yesterday? I could only stomach a few minutes, but it was long enough to hear him rant about "personal responsibility" and how his employer didn't provide health insurance, that he had to pay out of pocket for his own insurance and didn't get any kind of tax benefit to help him-- and that people just need to get their own insurance. Guess the #$%!@ never tried to live like the majority of us shmucks who obviously don't have enough "disposable income" left to purchase insurance-- and even then, with all the copays and deductibles many people with "coverage" still don't bother going to the doctor until something is seriously wrong (which probably wouldn't be that serious had they gone much earlier).
France has the BEST health care in the world. Being sent to France for care is a good thing if you need specialized care.
This is EXACTLY why we need a single payer option.
Is against patient health care.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206011...
Beyong the insurance conspiracy there is a concerted effort to maximize profits at the expense of peoples' health.
deleted
What you went through should not happen to anyone. Disgraceful!
Hope you are doing better :)
That's what happens when you don't have an idea besides cutting taxes for Daddy Warbucks for 12 years or so...
Why aren't these people in jail?
it is wrong on so many levels to have access to the care you need, only if you can pay for it? Then you realize that the people who often need care the most, are the ones who can least afford it?
Nice system we have here...........
the insurance companies wouldn't commit to only limiting rescissions to policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage...but to me this underscores the problem with insurance companies.
The question is this: why would someone lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage? because they friggin need to see a doctor and cannot afford it on their own!
Of course the problem is insurance companies and the solution is single payer, universal care where no one can be denied health care for any reason. In other words, under this new system, no one would need to lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage because fraud would not be possible--EVERYONE WOULD BE COVERED REGARDLESS OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, ETC...
Is all the money the insurance companies will lose.
They pay our elected officials to much for them to side with us.
We have to do something about this fraud being commited daily.
Here is a list of elected people taking payoffs to cheat the American people and the amounts of bribes being taken. This is just from health care and insurance.
It is mind boggling to think how much these people are taking from others!
Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $4,026,933)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $2,833,731)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $2,758,468)
And when you just go right to Big Insurance, the non-presidential candidates who got the biggest legalized bribes were the 7 senators who have been tasked with the job of killing single-payer:
Ben Nelson (DLC-NE- $1,196,799)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $1,184,113)
Joe Lieberman (DLC- CT- $1,036,302)
Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $1,035,530)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY- $981,400)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $929,207)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA- $884,724)
We need to investigate and prosecute these criminals now. Severe jail terms are in order for these criminals!
Do Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell understand that THEY have a publicly funded heath care plan? Why isn't their health care plan "socialized medicine"? CUT-OFF HEALTH CARE IMMEDIATELY FOR ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. They MUST then develop a publicly funded plan that they MUST use. I guarantee you that a plan will be developed within 60 days AND I guarantee you that it will be a GOOD plan. Right now, these people have no incentive to fix the mess. It would be fun to see how Cantor and Boehner interact with the friendly folks at UHC to get their COBRA going.
... and with the health care plans we have available today, that does not bode well.
...one very important point here. If not for our current system of healthcare denial, we would have at LEAST 20-30 fewer millionaires in our country.
It goes without saying that is FAR more important than saving the lives of mere peons such as us.
but what if - just what if - everyone witheld premium payments - like as in 0 revenue coming in for this greedy filth. Ah well, we can dream of collective action can't we?
...many people currently undergoing treatment that couldn't afford to give them another reason to cancel policies would be a problem I think.
The only possible solution is to find more progressives to put into office to replace the Republican Lite Dems.
That, or we take a lesson from Iran and march on Washington until we get it. Doubt that will happen though...
These companies are businesses that have a bottom line and strive to turn a profit. Therefore, like any good capitalistic entity, they offer the least amount of services (they can get away with) for the highest return or profit.
I'm afraid this greed will seal the fate of private insurance companies and provide supporters of socialized medicine with all the ammunition they need.
Greed brought down Wall Street and the economy. The government intervened.
It appears that greed will also take down the healthcare system. The government WILL intervene.
There are a few things worth of consideration here.
1. Seniors and children have access to healthcare: Medicare for seniors and various state/federal programs for the kids. One midwestern state has capped family income at more than $88,000 for families. Those below that cap are eligible for the public insurace program for their children. In TX recently, a move to raise the cap to over $66,000 was defeated. I am unsure what the current cap in that state is.
2. This leaves the people from 18 to 65 without publicly insured health care. This demographic is by and large the healthiest in the country. Certain groups, women who are pregnant or likely to become so, for example, might use more than average insurance and pay slightly higher rates. Ditto for persons who are charged/convicted with drunk driving, or who are in high risk sports activities, might also be charged more for premiums.
3. Keep in mind that our soldiers, firefighters, and police officers are already covered.
4. The illegal aliens MUST be precluded from this program.
Taking all the above into consideration, it seems to me that a program similiar to Medicare could be very cost effective for the adult citizens, who so heavily taxed to provide all entitlement programs, would be easy to cover with public insurance access.
OK, leaving all else aside, could you please explain #3?
Firefighters and police officers do not magically have health care provided for them or their families. If they're lucky, they work for an entity that provides a health insurance option, but they don't have any more guarantees than anyone else.
because they're not human and are undeserving of any help from those who are better off than themselves.
In the ER:
"He's bleeding out! Where's his green card? Looks Latino. Hmmm No green card, no treatment. Bleed out mofo."
I imagine you worship Jesus do you?
I worship God in Jesus' name. Our government is NOT responsible for the care and feeding of all those who sneak acoss our borders. Their governments are.
Emergency health care is mandated. No need for anyone to "bleed out". Make them stable and return to their home countries. STAT!!
Who would Jesus-ah exclude from healthcare?
The hypocrisy of you Christ co-opters makes me ill. And your exclusivity clause, "I got mine, thou can go fuck thouself," attitude is directly attributable to the uncharitable acts done in His name that are destroying the world.
Thanks for nothing, Fake Christian. By your acts, we shall know ye.
The health insurance company revenue stream is insurance premiums paid by subscribers. Their costs consist of administration + whatever they have to pay for actual medical care and treatments. (I know, this is elementary stuff, but bear with me.)
Especially in recent years, they've discovered that if they add more administration that is specifically dedicated to finding ways to deny coverage and payments, the ratio is very much in their favor. That same testimony refers to single employees who saved their employers millions of dollars.
Moreover, there is no incentive to try to keep policy holders who make use of the insurance benefits. In fact, each time you go to the doctor or hospital, somewhere in their computers you are probably a few points closer to a rescission review.
But let's take one step back. Go visit the website of any health insurance company, and find the place where you can apply for coverage. Just look at all the questions they ask about your medical history. Height, weight, age -- if you're too old or too fat or too skinny, they don't want you. Then the long, long list of "Have you ever...?" questions, where they want to know about literally every time you've ever been to the doctor or hospital, including stuff in the ancient past, which seems no longer relevant.
At minimum, if they were to accept you as a subscriber, they will refuse to pay for any medical care associated with any prior condition, including things that are only tangentially related. (Bad skiing injury to your left ankle in your teens? If you develop arthritis in that ankle when you're fifty, they'd just as soon not cover that.) More to the point, all those medical history questions have nothing to do with getting you the care you need -- they are attempts to elicit a reason to deny you a policy.
Really -- just look at the lists of questions. If it's been a while since you've had to fill out an application, think about the last time you did. Notice how much longer the list has gotten? How many seemingly irrelevant things are on it?
Gotta think like they do: Did you break your nose as a child? Well, then you forget sinus polyp surgery. Have asthma when you were younger, but haven't needed meds since you turned 16? Doesn't matter. As for lots of other conditions which while chronic can be controlled with regular, routine medical care -- diabetes, acid reflux, high blood pressure, migraines, allergies -- every one of these is now a reason why you can and will be denied health insurance.
And being denied insurance in America is tantamount to being denied healthcare altogether.
Again, the Canadian example: You're a citizen. You get a card. Doesn't matter how sick you are or have been. You call any doctor you like, go to any hospital or urgent care facility you need. You give them the card. When they ask for your medical information, it's so they can give you the best possible and most accurate care for your specific situation.
One of the most important things we can remember is the health insurance companies are not our friends. They want our money, as much as they can get. They also want to provide as little as possible in return. It's the profit motive, and that's what's killing us all.
I say its way past time to put the fear in them...
Unless you and or someone you're providing for is currently getting medical treatment...
DROP YOUR INSURER LIKE A BAD HABIT!
First off, let's forget the Dems and Repubs bull. A large part of the uninsured is by personal choice. They either don't want to spend money on insurance or work the system to get free medical. second insurers are the most "legal" crooks there are. They know they can wait out any individual. Everyone throws up their hands and say We can't do anything about it. Well that is a bunch of bull. I do not want a government run program, but I want tight restrictions put on insurance companies. Breaking a contract should result in quadruple damages(not based on premiums, but based on pain and suffering). If claims are not handled within a month, major fines should result. I could go on, but the idea is to give the little man clout and eliminate insurance companies profiting from delay.
'fitness', some 46 million people in America lack insurance, while another 25 million are underinsured. The typical family insurance plan is now over $12,000 a year -- which usually has high deductables and co-pays, so actual expenditures can be far higher.
For reference, the official poverty level income for a family of four in the U.S. contiguous states is $21,200.
The plain fact is the 'large part of the uninsured' is either being unable to afford it or, like in my own case, of being unable to purchase it at any price. Many who lack insurance do go ahead an apply for coverage and based on current practices in the market, all it takes is a history of allergies or migraines, or having been treated five years ago (successfully, with full recovery) for RSIs.
Here's a link which might increase your sympathy a touch for those who lack insurance, and those who have crappy insurance:
http://www.healthcareproblems.org/health-care...
Login or Register to post comments.