Fuck the insurance companies and shoot the horse they rode in on.
Imagine this: Not long after getting word that you are HIV positive, you receive a letter from your insurance carrier. They’re revoking your coverage because, upon examining your medical records, they’ve decided you knew about your condition and hid it from them. You have no idea what they are talking about; you bought this policy before the diagnosis. But when you inform them of this, and even provide some evidence that their investigation is in error, they ignore you. Meanwhile, you’re on the hook for unimaginable medical bills, since you’re uninsured and there’s not a carrier in the world that will take you now.
Jerome Mitchell didn’t have to imagine. It happened to him. According to a new story by investigative reporter Murry Waas, Mitchell in 2002 bought an individual policy as he prepared to begin college. A few months later, he learned he was HIV positive. That’s when Fortis insurance, which is now part of Assurant, informed him they were canceling his coverage. Apparently a Fortis reviewer went through his medical file and found a nurse’s note, dated from 2001, referencing his HIV status. The memo happened to be in a pile of records from 2002, suggesting it may simply have been mis-dated; even the reviewer who found it asked whether that one piece of paper was sufficient grounds for revoking coverage.
Immoral bastards!
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell’s case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.



#1 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2010 - 10:43 am
Just a point of information. President Obama’s health insurance “reform” allows insurance companies to continue to get away with this. The reason they can do it is lack of market competition and because they have an exemption from anti-trust laws.
#2 by Larry Bergan on March 19, 2010 - 2:27 am
How much do those AIDS drugs really cost to produce; pennies on the dollar? That’s what’s sick. The whole system WANTS people who have AIDS to die, just as always.
#3 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 19, 2010 - 12:58 pm
Careful, Richard.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/23/repealing-antitrust-exemption-health-insurance-companies-0
I heard about the vote to repeal the anti-trust exemption a couple of weeks ago on the radio. I was rather pleased that it passed the House with little dissent.
#4 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2010 - 1:21 pm
Dwight, scroll down to Myth #15 on the FDL fact sheet (PDF) on the AHIP/PhRMA bailout bill:
HR 4626, the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, would remove the anti-trust law exemption. Unfortunately, the Senate isn’t likely to pass this bill. It is completely separate from the legislation the House will vote on this Sunday.
#5 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 19, 2010 - 8:56 pm
Richard–
Now you’re being ureasonable. If HR 4626 were included in the Senate health reform bill, would you be more supportive of it? HR 4626 isn’t facing any challenges that the whole of healthcare reform isn’t facing, but at least it has a chance to pass separately from the big, messy bill.
In any case, if HR 4626 passes, then #15 won’t matter any more, whether it’s in the Senate bill or not. Your original contention is disingenuous if it presumes to criticize the healthcare bill for not having a feature that’s part of a simultaneously considered bill that’s the President supports. Clearly, “President Obama’s health insurance ‘reform’” includes removing antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies–just not all as part of the same big package.
Frankly, I’d think you’d be happy about HR 4626; after all, you don’t want the current Senate bill, and HR 4626 allows a crucial change in health care reform to pass independently of it.
The other concerns raised in the FDL myth sheet are notable.
#6 by Richard Warnick on March 20, 2010 - 10:17 am
Dwight–
Obviously, I am in favor of HR 4626, but it doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell in the Senate. If it was a viable bill, then it would have been put in the reconciliation package.
And just as obviously, I would like to see Congress pass all kinds of real health care reform without putting it in a bill that includes an individual mandate.
That didn’t happen. There’s nothing more we can do, the Dems failed epically.
I guess we can always reminisce about the good old days in 2008, when candidate Obama was against the individual mandate and for the public option. Remember this?
#7 by Frank Staheli on March 20, 2010 - 11:30 am
Glenden: Very poignant story. This represents another of those approximately 1-page bills that congress could and should pass to outlaw immoral behavior.
This is why it’s so silly to spend so much time on 2,000 page bills that are nearly impossible to understand and therefore almost infinitely possible to take advantage of and get around.
Simple solutions are better.