Family Health Insurance
Mar
12
Question: Will the health care insurer cure you as quickly as possible ?.?
March 12, 2010 | 1 Comment
As in this quote : “… if you are sick, an insurance company’s best interest is to cure you as quickly as possible. If you stay sick, you are just going to want more medicine, which they are obligated to pay for!”
“cure” will translate to “cure within the health care insurer’s payment guidelines” so won’t the system mutate and kill you off if you are way outside the guidelines.(for example a lonely old person who no one will ask too many questions about and who is racking up an enormous bill)
(why wouldn’t the lonely old person be released from hospital and told for example to drink vegetable juice, as no other medicine is affordable ?
hopefully the person would be, but it mightn’t occur to the system to do this.
The problem patient might be in a ward where there are insufficient beds, so the bed is urgently needed, and the only mechanism that occurs to the ward manager is to ramp up the dosage of an unneeded painkiller.)
Tt’s not that all, or any, health care insurers operate like this, but there seems to be a loophole in the system that allows it.
I have strong opinions about insurance companies or government provided insurance.
The whole point of their existence is not to help people financially in their time of need. The point of their existence is to make a profit.
Therefore, when they pay a claim, they are losing money. When they find an excuse to not pay claim, they make money. When someone defrauds an insurance company, they feel they need to make that money back so they raise rates on everyone, and then install procedures to discourage fraud, which in turn make it harder for honest claimants to collect.
Some companies are glad to continue paying… as long as you are fine with paying increasingly large premiums. Many times the premiums are so large that a normal person would not be able to afford them and therefore must drop the insurance policy.
So to ask about whether an insurer will try to cure someone as quickly as possible is not the issue. The issue is how they can divest themselves of their liability as quickly as possible. Whether it be curing someone or dropping someone or letting them die, the result is the same.
The question is: which is cheaper?
Comments
1 Comment so far
I have strong opinions about insurance companies or government provided insurance.
The whole point of their existence is not to help people financially in their time of need. The point of their existence is to make a profit.
Therefore, when they pay a claim, they are losing money. When they find an excuse to not pay claim, they make money. When someone defrauds an insurance company, they feel they need to make that money back so they raise rates on everyone, and then install procedures to discourage fraud, which in turn make it harder for honest claimants to collect.
Some companies are glad to continue paying… as long as you are fine with paying increasingly large premiums. Many times the premiums are so large that a normal person would not be able to afford them and therefore must drop the insurance policy.
So to ask about whether an insurer will try to cure someone as quickly as possible is not the issue. The issue is how they can divest themselves of their liability as quickly as possible. Whether it be curing someone or dropping someone or letting them die, the result is the same.
The question is: which is cheaper?
References :