Health Net, Not health Care
February 24, 2008
There was a recent news story about a Breast cancer patient, Patsy Bates who was dropped from Health Net’s health care insurance policy when Health net discovered it was less of a finical burden to deny cancer treatment of this patient. This patient sued, and while she recovered $750,00 dollars for her claim, the judge, Sam Cianchetti leveled a penalty of 8.9 million dollars as punitive judgment against Health Net. I’m not happy about the lawyers getting 8.9 million dollars for this case, but I do feel the punitive judgment against Health Net should come from the personal finical funds of all those involved in the decision to drop this patient from health care coverage and the majority of this judgment coming from Health Net Chief Executive Jay Gellert.
Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17 year old who died from a decision not cover the cost of a liver transplant by Cigna HealthCare due to what they consider as procedure was experimental and outside the scope of coverage only to approve coverage shortly after a mass protest from health care workers and doctors at UCLA. Their decision to approve funding came hours after Nataline died.
Blue Cross sent out a letter to the doctors who are part of their network to disclose their health conditions so Blue Cross could decide if coverage should be denied or if the specific patient could be dropped from health care coverage. Basically, Blue Cross wants all health care providers to violate the agreement of trust between patient and doctor.
Arnold Swartz_Hummer wants to make the process of applying for Medi-Care more complex and burdened with government bureaucracy to prevent individual in need of care from getting it in an effort to save money. It was not long ago when Swartz_Hummer wanted to provide universal coverage for all who live in California. Hypocrite! Like every other politician who survives who are products of political Darwinism.
The California Department of Managed care, seems to be powerless to do anything about this kind of cruel cooperate behavior, if anything, they seem to encourage this specific kind of behavior rather than prevent and hold these health care providers accountable and responsible for what they do. From my personal experience with DHMC, they are a bunch of buffoons and paper pushers with no interest in the well being of health insurance /HMO subscribers.
Every one of these individuals share no personal responsibility for their cooperate or government actions and or cares about what happens to the well being or health of society as a whole. It seems that they are concerned about is making gobs of dollars or saving more dollars. The USA spends lots of money on the health car system only to receive poor ratings for actual health care provided when compared to other developed countries in the world. Fact is, the health care system in the USA is simply broken. A good part of the blame falls directly on the shoulders of lawyers. They have encouraged patients to sue at times for un-reasonable problems that were the part of the course of treatment. On the other hand, lawyers are well justified in supporting the rights of patients in the case of Health Net where they choose to drop a cancer patient from health care coverage. IMO, the settlement should have come directly from the personal wealth of every individual in the decision tree who set up, “find a reason to drop any member and receive a reward for this effort.” I’m pretty sure lawyers are why a friend who is a facial surgeon pays $90,000 each year for mal-practice insurance, that was back in the early 1980’s. Doctors and other health care providers appear to be en-slaved by greedy robber baron management, investors, CEOs and government.
The lack of balance is the real problem here. There are health care providers that are for profit like Health Net, Blue Cross and others who simply see this as another business that must grow and produce a profit number that meets investor expectations. These CEO’s hold no personal responsibility or is affected in any real way by how they treat their health insurance members, which is one of the primary reasons why they are so disconnected from their actions, and most always driven by greed and desire. Regardless of what their actions might be, they will receive their “golden dollars retirement” which many times are in the millions of dollars. As vindictive as this sounds, it might be good for these CEO’s to suffer from some sort of chronic health condition and denied coverage to treat it due to their policymaking. These individuals have become the modern version of the robber barons of the past. How little humanity has grown up or matured.
It is no wonder why health insurance companies generally refuse to cover gender related health care. It always comes down to dollars and where they can make a profit. All this is pretty similar to management making engineering design decisions where they have no expertise in these areas; it almost always results in a disaster. There is nothing to hold these individuals responsible or accountable for their actions and the way government is currently setup, it seems to encourage this repulsive behavior of these morally bankrupt CEO’s and management.
There was a recent news story about a Breast cancer patient, Patsy Bates who was dropped from Health Net’s health care insurance policy when Health net discovered it was less of a finical burden to deny cancer treatment of this patient. This patient sued, and while she recovered $750,00 dollars for her claim, the judge, Sam Cianchetti leveled a penalty of 8.9 million dollars as punitive judgment against Health Net. I’m not happy about the lawyers getting 8.9 million dollars for this case, but I do feel the punitive judgment against Health Net should come from the personal finical funds of all those involved in the decision to drop this patient from health care coverage and the majority of this judgment coming from Health Net Chief Executive Jay Gellert.
Nataline Sarkisyan, the 17 year old who died from a decision not cover the cost of a liver transplant by Cigna HealthCare due to what they consider as procedure was experimental and outside the scope of coverage only to approve coverage shortly after a mass protest from health care workers and doctors at UCLA. Their decision to approve funding came hours after Nataline died.
Blue Cross sent out a letter to the doctors who are part of their network to disclose their health conditions so Blue Cross could decide if coverage should be denied or if the specific patient could be dropped from health care coverage. Basically, Blue Cross wants all health care providers to violate the agreement of trust between patient and doctor.
Arnold Swartz_Hummer wants to make the process of applying for Medi-Care more complex and burdened with government bureaucracy to prevent individual in need of care from getting it in an effort to save money. It was not long ago when Swartz_Hummer wanted to provide universal coverage for all who live in California. Hypocrite! Like every other politician who survives who are products of political Darwinism.
The California Department of Managed care, seems to be powerless to do anything about this kind of cruel cooperate behavior, if anything, they seem to encourage this specific kind of behavior rather than prevent and hold these health care providers accountable and responsible for what they do. From my personal experience with DHMC, they are a bunch of buffoons and paper pushers with no interest in the well being of health insurance /HMO subscribers.
Every one of these individuals share no personal responsibility for their cooperate or government actions and or cares about what happens to the well being or health of society as a whole. It seems that they are concerned about is making gobs of dollars or saving more dollars. The USA spends lots of money on the health car system only to receive poor ratings for actual health care provided when compared to other developed countries in the world. Fact is, the health care system in the USA is simply broken. A good part of the blame falls directly on the shoulders of lawyers. They have encouraged patients to sue at times for un-reasonable problems that were the part of the course of treatment. On the other hand, lawyers are well justified in supporting the rights of patients in the case of Health Net where they choose to drop a cancer patient from health care coverage. IMO, the settlement should have come directly from the personal wealth of every individual in the decision tree who set up, “find a reason to drop any member and receive a reward for this effort.” I’m pretty sure lawyers are why a friend who is a facial surgeon pays $90,000 each year for mal-practice insurance, that was back in the early 1980’s. Doctors and other health care providers appear to be en-slaved by greedy robber baron management, investors, CEOs and government.
The lack of balance is the real problem here. There are health care providers that are for profit like Health Net, Blue Cross and others who simply see this as another business that must grow and produce a profit number that meets investor expectations. These CEO’s hold no personal responsibility or is affected in any real way by how they treat their health insurance members, which is one of the primary reasons why they are so disconnected from their actions, and most always driven by greed and desire. Regardless of what their actions might be, they will receive their “golden dollars retirement” which many times are in the millions of dollars. As vindictive as this sounds, it might be good for these CEO’s to suffer from some sort of chronic health condition and denied coverage to treat it due to their policymaking. These individuals have become the modern version of the robber barons of the past. How little humanity has grown up or matured.
It is no wonder why health insurance companies generally refuse to cover gender related health care. It always comes down to dollars and where they can make a profit. All this is pretty similar to management making engineering design decisions where they have no expertise in these areas; it almost always results in a disaster. There is nothing to hold these individuals responsible or accountable for their actions and the way government is currently setup, it seems to encourage this repulsive behavior of these morally bankrupt CEO’s and management.
posted by Rupunzell | 9:46 AM
|
0 Comments
