Comments on: Denial of Care Profits: $73 million for CIGNA’s retiring CEO

By: Health insurers pour money into GOP campaigns, hoping to limit new regulations - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:00:54 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Robert Roselle

Robert Roselle — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:12:03 +0000

MEDICARE FOR ALL

By: Rosen Myer

Rosen Myer — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:04:06 +0000

CIGNA HealthCare as well as United HealthCare all stink! All of their CEO’s make in excess of $70 million. United HealthCare CEO made $70 Billion in bonus along inn 2005! They get this money simply because they deny claims or pay them at a lesser benefit. It is “legalized extortion.” People don’t realize that they pay their premiums and pay bills that their insurance company should have paid. I get denials all the time on claims where the insurance companies are not paying the correct amount. Thier “usual and customary” is a bunch of total bunk. These CEO’s make more money in bonuses than the banks that we just bailed out. Now we are going to be taxed on this new healthcare reform bologne. We are already overpying by a trillion per week claims that we should not pay. I work denials and I know that people are ripped off daily simply because these insurance companies are exempt from the law!

If any of the public would like some help with thier denials feel free to send me an email. I will help at no charge. Like I said, 90% of the people that have insurance are being ripped off!!!!!!!

By: Allen

Allen — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:10:15 +0000

To quote the infamous, “I say thanks but no thanks to the pseudo health care reform bills that go no where.”

By: Allen

Allen — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:05:50 +0000

Andy you don’t need to be concerned about breaking the bank for the insurance industry because you only paid into the system 3 months before using it. You can thank people like me rather than the insurance industry. I worked in higher education for 20 years and my employers provided premium coverage. All throughout those 20 years my son and I were healthy as could be and rarely used the coverage. All total we may have had 15 to 25 doctor office visits throughout the 20 years and 4 to 5 prescription drugs. A couple of years ago I lost my job and thus my coverage. I could use the coverage now due to stress illnesses brought on by the loss of income. Even though I contributed to the system for 20 years, I now have no coverage and no access to affordable health care. Thank me and others like me who paid in for years but now that we need it the most have no access to the system. Your insurance provider did not pay for your appendectomy from their profits. They paid for it from collected premiums that will never provide care for those who contributed. Neither the house nor the Senate bills address this disparity. They only require insurers to continue coverage if you can pay. If you loose your job you can’t pay and so these pseudo bills do nothing to address this problem. In my current situation I will have no choice but to choose to pay the 2% to 3% of income penalty rather than pay for premiums that provide little in coverage and offer nothing except high deductibles and high co-pays. Most of the uninsured will likely make this same choice. I probably will never qualify for insurance premium assistance as I have rental income – not a lot of cash flow because the rents just pay the mortgages. Nevertheless, in terms of medicaid eligibility the rents are income and the property assets, therefore, I don’t qualify for health coverage through medicaid and medicare is many years away. The only thing the mandate will do for me is to create another form of stress without providing access to health care.

By: Andy Tyler

Andy Tyler — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:26:40 +0000

I disagree with dropping the insurance mandate. The bills emerging from congress are the result of one year of debate, protest, healthcare rallies, and lobbying. (not to mention the previous 60 years or so) It is the best compromise that can be for the moment. I feel that the mandates should be stronger. Exempting preexisting conditions for coverage is “good” business. (bad humanitarianism) To continue business with the increased expenses of all inclusive coverage, the Cignas of the world need to increase revenue or go bankrupt covering no one. The choice is either raising premiums or increasing the risk pool. I paid premiums for 3 months before my emergency appendectomy.(39 years old) I am a tremendous net loss to the state of Indiana public insurance plan, and the hospital that performed the surgery. If I would have purchased insurance at age 16, or had been subsidized from the beginning of employment, my surgery would have been paid for. I am 100% for single payer, universal healthcare coverage, but it isn’t there yet. The opponents are not going to back down anymore than the proponents. Until we finally get single payer/universal everyone needs to participate in some form of insurance. Thats why government insurance works because we don’t have a choice in paying taxes. Everyone pays for healthcare services whether you use them or not. Whether insurance is public or private, healthy people are paying for sick people. The more healthy people that participate (i.e. mandates) the lower the cost for everyone.