Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Think Progress » Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as dogs.
In the state of New York, insurers are legally prohibited from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims. So when Guardian, a major insurance company, was faced with the high-cost claims of 37 year-old muscular dystrophy patient Ian Pearl, it decided to cancel its entire line of coverage in the state of New York rather than pay for Pearls claims. In an e-mail obtained by The Washington Times, it was revealed that one executive at the company refers to patients like Pearl as dogs that the company can simply get rid of:
In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl dogs that the company could get rid of.
A federal court quickly ruled that the companys actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.
The cost of Pearls annual treatment is approximately $1 million a year. The Pearl family is unable to receive the quality health care that Ian needs. One-on-one skilled nursing is essential, Mrs. Pearl said.
...
$1 million a year for treatment would be rationed in a country with socialized medicine. They simply could not afford it for one person.
The thought that anyone could defend these bastards is stunning.
Think Progress » Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as dogs.
In the state of New York, insurers are legally prohibited from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims. So when Guardian, a major insurance company, was faced with the high-cost claims of 37 year-old muscular dystrophy patient Ian Pearl, it decided to cancel its entire line of coverage in the state of New York rather than pay for Pearls claims. In an e-mail obtained by The Washington Times, it was revealed that one executive at the company refers to patients like Pearl as dogs that the company can simply get rid of:
In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl dogs that the company could get rid of.
A federal court quickly ruled that the companys actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.
The cost of Pearls annual treatment is approximately $1 million a year. The Pearl family is unable to receive the quality health care that Ian needs. One-on-one skilled nursing is essential, Mrs. Pearl said.
Mmm, it's a good thing that the Republicans and some Democrats are protecting such businesses like Guardian Life Insurance Co. and keeping those dogs down. Goodness knows what would happen to the bottom lines if the insurance companies actually had to do what they're paid for. That would be actually doing their job, now what kind of standard would that set?
Hooray for Republicans and some Democrats and their preventing of any real fixing in Health Care! Hooray for Republicans and some Democrats just looking out for Big Businesses with wanting Tort Reform! Hooray for Republicans and some Democrats wanting to offer tax credits to the poor who have no money to tax in the first place, genius idea!
Let's all give them a round of applause.
--------
Now back in reality, WHAT THE FUCK. Seriously? Is this what we have come to? These companies see us as dogs and some of you people want to protect them? You can feel free to be their bitches but I'll settle for not such bullshit.
That executive deserves to be fired and this company should not be legally allowed to do this to this poor man.
Which is why they cut off anyone with even a mild case of this illness.
If insurance is only for people NOT sick and who DON'T get sick, then why is it called "insurance"?
How can Republicans defend this? How is it possible?
The thought that anyone could defend these bastards is stunning.
The thought that anyone could defend these bastards is stunning.
The thought that a federal court could rule that this is legal is more surprising to me than the insurance companies trying to get out of paying.
its not a matter of defending them as it is you wont see the government spending $1 mil a year for someone to stay aliveThe thought that anyone could defend these bastards is stunning.
you think this is bad, just wait till you have government bureaucrats running it
Notice that the problem here stems from government regulation, which forces the insurance companies to do things that aren't profitable. The result of well-intentioned legislation is that now everyone suffers. This is typical for gov't programs, the law of unintended consequences. And passing a $2T bill is going to help this how??
Notice that the problem here stems from government regulation, which forces the insurance companies to do things that aren't profitable. The result of well-intentioned legislation is that now everyone suffers. This is typical for gov't programs, the law of unintended consequences. And passing a $2T bill is going to help this how??
You mean things like pay up on an obligation?
Notice that the problem here stems from government regulation, which forces the insurance companies to do things that aren't profitable. The result of well-intentioned legislation is that now everyone suffers. This is typical for gov't programs, the law of unintended consequences. And passing a $2T bill is going to help this how??
Think Progress » Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as dogs.
In the state of New York, insurers are legally prohibited from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims. So when Guardian, a major insurance company, was faced with the high-cost claims of 37 year-old muscular dystrophy patient Ian Pearl, it decided to cancel its entire line of coverage in the state of New York rather than pay for Pearls claims. In an e-mail obtained by The Washington Times, it was revealed that one executive at the company refers to patients like Pearl as dogs that the company can simply get rid of:
In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl dogs that the company could get rid of.
A federal court quickly ruled that the companys actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.
The cost of Pearls annual treatment is approximately $1 million a year. The Pearl family is unable to receive the quality health care that Ian needs. One-on-one skilled nursing is essential, Mrs. Pearl said.
...
$1 million a year for treatment would be rationed in a country with socialized medicine. They simply could not afford it for one person.
Notice that the problem here stems from government regulation, which forces the insurance companies to do things that aren't profitable. The result of well-intentioned legislation is that now everyone suffers. This is typical for gov't programs, the law of unintended consequences. And passing a $2T bill is going to help this how??
Which is why there should be a public options for the people that don't want to deal with the law of unintended consequences.
Yeah, and the solution Obama is offering: Moving from a 95% Government controlled Health-Care System to a 100% Government controlled Health-Care System.
Change is a real bitch.
95 % goverment controlled? Health Insurance companies are exempt from the same laws that most other industries must adhere too.
$1 million a year for treatment would be rationed in a country with socialized medicine. They simply could not afford it for one person.
CAN YOU SAY STEPHEN HAWKING????? Who has had NH in the UK and the freedom to buy a supplement?
Basic care from the public option and then the companies are free to compete for the "supplemental" business, kinda like Medicare and then in comes MEDI-GAP, who KNOW the clientele is older, frailer, and so on and so on and so on! Funny how competing for scraps after Medicare has not bothered the insurance companies very much!
What makes you think the very existence of a "pubic option" would not engender unintended consequences??
What makes you think the very existence of a "pubic option" would not engender unintended consequences??
Great question, but I know what the private option's law of unintended consequences is like, and I will take my chances with the public option thank you very much.
