Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1 Health insurers drop coverage for children ahead of new rules 
    Health insurers drop coverage for children ahead of new rules
    By Julian Pecquet - 09/20/10 05:00 PM ET

    Health plans in at least four states have announced they're dropping children's coverage just days ahead of new rules created by the healthcare reform law, according to the liberal grassroots group Health Care for America Now (HCAN).

    The new healthcare law forbids insurers from turning down children with pre-existing conditions starting Thursday, one of several reforms Democrats are eager to highlight this week as they try to build support for the law ahead of the mid-term elections. But news of insurers dropping their plans as a result of the new law has thrown a damper on that strategy and prompted fierce push-back from the administration's allies at HCAN.

    The announcement could lead to higher costs for some parents who are buying separate coverage for themselves and their children at lower cost than the family coverage that's available to them.

    "We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds and decided to refuse to sell child-only coverage," HCAN Executive Director Ethan Rome said in a statement. "The latest announcement by the insurance companies that they won't cover kids is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.

    "Instead, they should reverse their actions immediately and simply follow the law. If the insurance companies can casually turn their backs on sick children now, who will they abandon next? This offensive behavior by the insurance companies is yet another reminder of why the new law is so important and why the Republicans’ call for repeal is so misguided."

    Health plans and state insurance commissioners in July raised concerns that the new rules could lead some insurers to stop children-only coverage because families could wait until their children get sick to buy coverage.

    Days later, the Obama administration issued regulations clarifying that insurers would still be able to establish enrollment periods in accordance with state law.
    Oops.

    The Hill
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Dropping kids coverage to secure their profits? Seems like sensible business decision. Also seems like a perfect example of why health care and health care access should not be treated as a commodity.

    Total failure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    I find it amusing that they claim it to be immoral to deny kids health care coverage but it is not immoral to kill children before they are born and in fact believe that the murder of the unborn should be covered by health insurance.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Dropping kids coverage to secure their profits? Seems like sensible business decision. Also seems like a perfect example of why health care and health care access should not be treated as a commodity.

    Total failure.

    This is all according to plan (by the Dems).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I find it amusing that they claim it to be immoral to deny kids health care coverage but it is not immoral to kill children before they are born and in fact believe that the murder of the unborn should be covered by health insurance.
    It depends on where/how one defines "person". There's no objective answer which is why we have such a tough time with this issue. For someone who defines "person" in the moral sense of the word (as being part of our moral community, with rights) as someone who is born (or someone with characteristics that only appear after birth, such as self-awareness), then they wouldn't see a fetus death to be killing a person. For someone who defines a person as any being with human DNA or defines personhood as something which arises in a unique way at conception then an abortion would clearly be killing a person and wrong.

    I think, however, that however you define a person, that a post-natal child certainly does qualify which is why wanting health care for children would seem to be universal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    It depends on where/how one defines "person". There's no objective answer which is why we have such a tough time with this issue. For someone who defines "person" in the moral sense of the word (as being part of our moral community, with rights) as someone who is born (or someone with characteristics that only appear after birth, such as self-awareness), then they wouldn't see a fetus death to be killing a person. For someone who defines a person as any being with human DNA or defines personhood as something which arises in a unique way at conception then an abortion would clearly be killing a person and wrong.

    I think, however, that however you define a person, that a post-natal child certainly does qualify which is why wanting health care for children would seem to be universal.
    Should companies behave morally or ethically? We tend to use the word moral incorrectly. Morals are more of an is-ness and ethics are basically ought-ness. Morals can be adapted based on societal and cultural changes. Ethics on the otherhand should be more universal and less maliable. I think this boundry became blurred when philosophers started describing "situational ethics" which is basically the ends justifies the means. That they are taking care of their stewardship with investor's money might be the moral thing to do in our culture or under the evolving healthcare system. It is definitely not ethical to put money over life but where the morals of two sub cultures clash, in this case the business culture and the lay culture (for lack of a better term), then what yard stick to we use to evaluate which one is superior?

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •