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 3 levels up... Expand
cissa

cissa

September 13 2009, 21:54:20 UTC 11 years ago

They have lots of customers in MA regardless of whether they provide any services at all, since we are now legally obligated to purchase their products, no matter how expensive, unaffordable, or useless they may be.

Deleted comment

cissa

cissa

September 14 2009, 01:20:36 UTC 11 years ago

Um, well, yeah.

My husband gets insurance through work, so we're basically OK our own selves. I mean, we'd probably buy that anyway, IF we could afford it. We have in the past successfully fought the denial-of-care approach and won.

However, this does not mean that I am unsympathetic to people not as privileged as we are; rather the reverse.

Refusing to pay has a lot of downside, and I'm not going to criticize anyone for not doing that. This does not make the requirement any less outrageous.
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

September 14 2009, 17:21:54 UTC 11 years ago

A revolt can work. The catch is, you need overwhelming numbers. It's like storming a castle. The government has massive power to enforce its desires, wrong or right. In order for a revolt to work, that means flooding the system with so many challenges that not even the government can afford to apply force to all the people who are breaking that rule.

With health insurance mandates, that probably won't work, because most people will pay for health insurance. If people who can't afford it refuse, there will probably be few enough that they can simply be fined into bankruptcy or thrown into jail for being poor. That's a vile thing to do, but our government has kissed off its ethics long since.

However, a revolt also relies on a groundswell of rage and resentment. That we do have; the insurance companies have made a majority of people HATE them. So it's possible that a spark in one place could flash into a wider conflagration based on that smouldering resentment.

The drawback to that, of course, is that enraged people tend to smash things. Reasoned reform is therefore greatly preferred over revolt and riot.

Deleted comment

ysabetwordsmith

Re: Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

September 15 2009, 03:38:41 UTC 11 years ago

Not everyone can afford to be arrested, thrown in jail, fined more money than they make, etc. for the sake of fighting for their rights. In fact most people can't. The mandate plans are carefully designed to take advantage of citizen weaknesses. Blaming the victims is not productive.

Deleted comment

ysabetwordsmith

Re: Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

September 15 2009, 15:50:43 UTC 11 years ago

If a feminist is assaulted by a corrupt police officer, who holds a gun to her head and tells her to love him or die, and she smiles and has sex with him...

... is she a hypocrite or a rape victim?