I don’t think that anyone wants to shield insurance companies from being responsible for their dereliction of duties. America does need healthcare reform, but universalizing it is only going to bring people to podiums weeping about losses and pointing their finger at the government instead of insurance companies.

In Canada, everyone knows someone who feels that the care they received (or didn’t receive at all) during illness or disease was substandard. Hard to sue the government though, when protocol is set out in a book and if the doctors adhere to the bare bones process of care, then it’s a no-fault situation.

remedy for consumers when Insurance companies deny coverage. This “plan” does NOTHING to fix those who are uninsured due to high risk health however there MUST be that fix in a ANY bill!

I must say I do NOT like Republicans attempting to play the blame game though! There is a problem and it should be fixed but for every ONE like that woman there are MILLIONS who have NEVER had a problem nor been DENIED coverage! I do NOT want to ASSAULT the FREE Market Insurance companies to WIN a debate….insulting really!

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It’s really important that we allow grievances to come to court. That is where disputes should be decided and we shouldn’t be protecting any industry from being responsible for their actions.

What regulations would you put in place to keep this from happening in the first place? I can only speak for myself, but I think it is safe to say many conservatives, while vehemently opposing the government take-over of health care Congress is attempting, feel something needs to be done to regulate the insurance industry and prevent horrendous acts such as this from ever happening. I hope you will be back to respond to this.

Thanks again.

Strange fonts everwhere.

As for the diary – just follow the money; that the story behind ObamaCare.

The debate over health care reform is hurt when people try to make it about capitalism or socialism;
What we have here is a situation where powerful private interests have exerted their influence to destroy the natural regulating effects of the marketplace, to their own advantage.

The problem is having a Congress that is beholden to private interests, who don’t care a whit about abstract principles of freedom of the marketplace; they only want to benefit themselves.

Laws are written by lobbyists for the benefit of the companies that hire them; the public good is disregarded. In this, the Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty.

This is why the debate is so endless- the Dems posture as champions of the people, when they are beholden to corporations; the Republicans posture as champions of the free market, when they are beholden to corporations who want to avoid competition and accountability.

A public insurance option would avoid the temptation to cut corners like what happend to this poor woman; but unless it were accountable to the people it serves, it would be no better.

Chanting slogans about Karl Marx or Adam Smith is a silly distraction; we first need to break the stranglehold private interests- insurers, hospitals, PhRMA, and the like have over our – OUR- representatives.

So Rep. Shadegg, please remember this horrific criminal act when you go about your duties- please remember who you swore to represent- not the private interests, but the people.

Yes, this woman is complaining about Nancy Pelosi, but isn’t she complaining because Pelosi is accepting a too CONSERVATIVE provision? You really want to agree with people who say Pelosi is not LIBERAL enough? Isn’t that more a Huffington Post stance?

She seems to be complaining that Pelosi is keeping the anti-lawsuit provisions of ERISA, and I thought the Republican and conservative health reform idea was basically eliminating all other lawsuits against doctors and care providers.

If this gal is your hero, you would seem to be not just laughing at Nancy pelosi but calling for MORE lawsuits against insurance companies. Is that really the position of RED STATE?

From the video, it appears that the poor woman was covered by an ERISA (commonly known as a self-funded) plan, which is exempt from state regulation. This is important because the carrier is only allowed to pay for benefits explicitly agreed to by the policyowner (which in this case *appears* to be the union). *If* that’s the case, then it’s really the union which cut off the funds.

For the sake of argument, though, let’s presume that that’s not the case. The next question to ask is why the carrier denied the claim (and/or refused further treatment). We don’t know, and it could be that they were wrong to have done so. But the *court* knew the *facts,* and *it* found that the carrier hadn’t wrongfully denied the claim. So what is it that the couple isn’t telling us?

Finally, why is it the insurance company’s fault that *care* was denied? Contrary to popular belief, carriers have NO POWER to deny *care* – they can only deny payment for it. And no, I’m not splitting hairs, the distinction is real, and important. Why is no one asking the providers why *they* denied care to this woman? Why is no one complaining about *their* greed?