Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Sauce for the Gander

It occurs to me that insurance companies (in general, but especially health insurance) have gotten into a habit of promising things they never deliver. "Bait and switch" is generally illegal, and grounds for lawsuit or complaint to chamber of commerce, Better Business Bureau, etc. And insurance companies often wind up owing people huge amounts of money that they refuse to pay. That's grounds for setting a collection agency on them.

I don't expect this sort of tactic would work very often; the companies are too rich and powerful. But if a LOT of people started suing the insurance companies and turning collectors onto them, it would drive them nuts, maybe even make them stop being so horrid. And halting that kind of attack would be a giant game of whack-a-mole, because there are millions of dissatisfied customers out there.
Tags: economics
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 29 comments
...go 5 levels up... Expand
ysabetwordsmith

Re: Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

September 13 2009, 01:19:41 UTC 11 years ago

>>We'd have to find some figures, but the fact that people do keep buying insurance may be a result of #1 -- they haven't yet made a large claim so
expect it to be paid as advertised.<<

Some studies have supported that, yes. Another heavy support is that most bankruptcies (I think it's about 60% now) are for medical bills, and of those, most (about 80%) were from insured people.

>>In fact a good many young healthy people have rationally chosen to go without insurance -- which is why Obama's plan will force them to buy it.<<

No matter how healthy you are, you can still get hit by a car or something like that, so it's always prudent to have access to good health care. However, I'm extremely against any plan that FORCES people to buy health insurance. Most people who can afford it already have it; most people who don't have it can't afford it. And people who hate the industry shouldn't be forced to support the people who are getting rich from it.
bemused_leftist

Re: Hmm...

bemused_leftist

September 13 2009, 07:51:15 UTC 11 years ago

I agree (and so did Obama, during the campaign). Hillary did want a mandate, but she wanted several public options among the choices (as well as keeping your existing private coverage if you liked it).

The bill shaping up, with the mandate but little else, seems the worst of both worlds.
ysabetwordsmith

Re: Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

September 13 2009, 13:50:43 UTC 11 years ago

A key problem is that there isn't just one bill, but several. The House and the Senate have at least one apiece, plus there's one (which almost nobody knows about) that proposes a single-payer plan. Most of the bills are a nightmare of arcane regulations and expensive jury-rigging. Powerful interests have pretty much ruled out anything that would actually lower costs or improve access and results.

So yes, the trend seems to be toward doing more harm than good. That makes me extremely angry.