Political Discussions
Health Care Gag Order And First Admendment Rights
Posted by Edistojoe • 9/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: first amendment, gag order, healthcare, humana, insurance
Has the Obama administration gone too far with a gag order on Humana and other Medicare Advantage insurers by issuing an order to stop mailers that tell seniors they will loose their Advantage benifits. Even when these claims are true. The Humana letter and more information can be seen at. www.edistojoe.com
User Comments
-
Here is the Reuters story, which seems to be about something else entirely:
"White House targets insurers over healthcare premiums"
www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58L1L020090922
No time to sort it out and react today, but maybe someone else will. I just know that bloggers on the right are frequently too quick to claim First Amendment infringement, insofar as I have never seen an actual case go to court and prevail. -
Hahahaha
only a "Republican" would insist that insurance corporations even have INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
-
I don't know about a corporation having free speech rights, but I do know that our Government should not be allowed to dictate what type of mail a company can and can't send out. Within the parameters of the Federal mailing system, obscenity, violence advocation, etc...
Here is the offending text of the dastardly letter Humana sent out:
"With the media reporting daily on Congress' and President Obama's efforts to enact meaningful health reforms this year, many Humana Medicare Advantage (MA) members are contacting us with questions. Members just like you want to know what these reforms might mean for their Medicare health plan and how they can get involved to help protect Medicare Advantage.
We are working diligently to ensure that our nation's leaders understand how proposed reforms might affect you.
At the same;time, we have created the Partner program to keep you informed about proposed Medicare changes and help you get involved so your voice is heard in Washington. Your opinions matter to us, to others on Medicare, and to your elected officials. There are two things you can do now to help show Congress the importance of Medicare Advantage:
• Opt into the Partner program. Becoming a Partner is easy. Just complete the accompanying, postage-paid form and follow the instructions to fold and mail it back. As a Humana Partner, you will join more than 50,000 Humana Medicare Advantage members who are receiving information about this issue and learning how to get involved to protect your Medicare health plan coverage.
• Let your Members of Congress know why Medicare Advantage is important to you. Congress is considering significant cuts to Medicare Advantage now, and your Members of Congress will want to know why this program is valuable to you because these cuts could mean higher costs and benefit reductions to many on Medicare Advantage.
We've made it easy for you to have your voice heard. Just call (877) 698-9228 (toll-free) or visit www.humanapartners.com for additional infonnation about this issue and how you can offer helpful input to your elected officials.
Leading health reform proposals being considered in Washington, D.C., this summer include billions in Medicare Advantage funding cuts, as well as spending reductions to original Medicare and Medicaid. While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so
valuable.
On behalf of Humana's 28,000 employees, I would like to thank you/or being a Humana member We look forward to partnering with you to ensure the Medicare Advantage program remains strong, so you can have peace of mind about your health coverage-now and in the future!
Regards,
Philip Painter, M.D.
Chief Medical Officer
Humana Medicare" -
-
Bit uneasy about this. There is enough information, on both sides of this debate, already available for people to make their minds up. A mailshot targeting elderly people with only one side of the story, from a party with vested interests and perceived power regarding the service they provide does not seem right.
The letter carries a disclaimer (in true insurance company fashion)
"Neither the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services nor the Medicare has reviewed these materials for accuracy or misrepresentation."
What is the point in sending a letter which may be inaccurate or misrepresentative?-
To misrepresent and take advantage of old people?
-
Let's see...a business puts out a mailer to its customers in regards to pending legislation that may affect them. In order NOT to be sued, it puts a disclaimer on the letter.
Yeah, I can see how that is a bad thing. Nasty mean old insurance company, being so selfish as to look out for its best interest.
Pelosi, Reid and El Presidente are telling us that the insurance companies are evil; because they charge such high premiums and because they have pre-existing conditions.
A major part of the cost of their premiums is the massive amount of regulations imposed upon them by the various states. Loosen the regulations and let people purchase across state lines and you would see premiums go down.
Let's look at the pre-existing conditions clauses insurance companies have. First of all, what are they in business for? To pay out on claims on the policies that insure their customers. That means they have to have vast amounts of reserves and they have to charge premiums accordingly. (This is very simplified for discussion, mind you.) Let's further extrapolate that you own a home. You are a happy home owner, but you are a neglectful home owner and you never bothered to get insurance on your home. One day your house catches fire and you incur $75,000.00 worth of damage. So you go to Allstate or State Farm or one of many homeowner insurance companies and ask them to sell you a policy that will pay out on your home that just nearly burned down.
How many insurance companies would cover you?
Should the Government force them to cover you AFTER your house burns down?
Or you could apply this to your automobile insurance. You drive without insurance, get hit and then want to be covered.
How long would insurance companies stay in business if they were forced to sell coverage to people after their homes burned down, or people's autos after they were in a wreck?
I understand that something needs to be done in the insurance end of the health care system. I don't think forcing coverage for pre-existing conditions is wise. The insurance companies need to stay in business to cover the people that have been paying their premiums to them. Don't get me wrong, I do not think insurance companies are wonderfully altruistic entities, but I also do not think they are inherently evil. -
Why would they be worried about being sued knowing that the information in their letter is accurate?
It is not the US healthcare debate that is important here it is the principle of a company deliberately alarming it's customers in order to protect their financial interests.
Imagine the uproar if the banks had written to their elderly customers saying that if they didn't get a bailout then the customer would loose their savings. -
Seems like a fair analogy, Polybore---and a scary one at that.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
