Monday, August 17, 2009

Obama attacks insurance companies for capping coverage and charging "outrageous fees"

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE57D47P20090816?feedType=nl&feedName=ushealth1100
Sat Aug 15, 2009
By Jeff Mason and Matt Spetalnick

GRAND JUNCTION, Colorado (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama reignited his criticism of health insurance companies on Saturday, promising reforms that would prevent firms from capping coverage or charging "outrageous" fees.

Traveling to a conservative area of Colorado, a western state that supported Obama in the 2008 election, the president continued his assault on companies that the White House has painted as being at the root of the country's healthcare woes while defending his proposals to fix the system.

"Insurance companies will no longer be able to ... place an arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive or charge outrageous out-of-pocket expenses on top of your premiums," Obama told the crowd of roughly 1,500 people.

"No one in America should go broke because they get sick," he said to loud applause.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The "death panels" are already here

Is our current system "downright evil"?

The "death panels" are already here

Sorry, Sarah Palin -- rationing of care? Private companies are already doing it, with sometimes fatal results
Salon.com
By Mike Madden
Aug. 11, 2009

The future of healthcare in America, according to Sarah Palin, might look something like this: A sick 17-year-old girl needs a liver transplant. Doctors find an available organ, and they're ready to operate, but the bureaucracy -- or as Palin would put it, the "death panel" -- steps in and says it won't pay for the surgery. Despite protests from the girl's family and her doctors, the heartless hacks hold their ground for a critical 10 days. Eventually, under massive public pressure, they relent -- but the patient dies before the operation can proceed.

It certainly sounds scary enough to make you want to go show up at a town hall meeting and yell about how misguided President Obama's healthcare reform plans are. Except that's not the future of healthcare -- it's the present. Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

Coverage of Palin's remarks, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's defense of them, over the weekend did point out that the idea that the reform plans would encourage government-sponsored euthanasia is one of a handful of deliberate falsehoods being peddled by opponents of the legislation. But the idea that only if reform passes would the government start setting up rationing and interfering with care goes beyond just the bogus euthanasia claim.

Opponents of reform often seem to skip right past any problems with the current system -- but it's rife with them. A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper). There is no national database of insurance claim denials, though, because private insurance companies aren't required to disclose such stats. Meanwhile, a House Energy and Commerce Committee report in June found that just three insurance companies kicked at least 20,000 people off their rolls between 2003 and 2007 for such reasons as typos on their application paperwork, a preexisting condition or a family member's medical history. People who buy insurance under individual policies, about 6 percent of adults, may be especially vulnerable, but the 63 percent of adults covered by employer-provided insurance aren't immune to difficulty...

Thursday, August 6, 2009


SEC: Ex-AIG CEO Greenberg settles fraud charges

AP

By STEPHEN BERNARD, AP Business Writer Stephen Bernard, Ap Business Writer

August 6, 2009

NEW YORK – The Securities and Exchange Commission said Thursday that former American International Group Inc. CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg agreed to pay a $15 million fine to settle fraud charges.

The charges are tied to an accounting scandal earlier this decade at AIG that led to Greenberg's ouster in 2005. The following year, AIG paid more than $1.6 billion to settle charges of improper accounting.

The case is unrelated to the government bailout of AIG, which is in the process of trying to sell off assets to pay off the $182.5 billion in loans it has received since last September.

A spokesman for Greenberg was not immediately available to comment. An AIG spokesman declined to comment.

The SEC said AIG's former chief financial officer, Howard Smith, will pay a $1.5 million fine tied to the investigation.

In complaints against Greenberg and Smith, the SEC said the pair were responsible for making misstatements that falsely showed AIG met or exceeded earnings and growth targets between 2000 and 2005. The pair did not admit or deny any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Greenberg was forced out of AIG after charges that the company had engaged in deceptive accounting practices surfaced.

Greenberg, who built AIG over his 35-year career from a small company into the world's largest insurer, have been fighting in court in an unrelated case over who controls an employee retirement fund. AIG had accused Greenberg of plundering the AIG retirement program composed of $4.3 billion in stock through a company called Starr International Co. that Greenberg controls. A jury last month sided with Greenberg in the civil case saying he did not have to reimburse AIG for the stock, but the decision was only an advisory recommendation.

The judge hearing the case will make a final ruling on who controls the fund, and its purpose, by the end of the month. This case is also unrelated to the insurer's bailout by the government.

AIG is currently in the middle of a major overhaul as it looks to repay the government for the loans it received to avoid collapsing last fall at the peak of the credit crisis. In return for the loan package, which is worth up to $182.5 billion, the government received about an 80 percent stake in the insurance giant.