The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-22-2010, 12:56 PM   #1
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Sorry to toss this in at this point in the discussion, but I think its warranted.

Quote:
Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.

Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.
WASHPO

What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so. If you are gonna regulate, do it right at least. Another reason why single payer was the only way to go.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2010, 03:55 PM   #2
Spexxvet
Makes some feel uncomfortable
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law?

Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves.
Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense.
The company with the patent, Aspex, is the plaintiff. The defendant, vsp, is punishing Aspex for suing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman View Post
What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so.
What gets me is that a company has to be forced to do the right thing.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce
Spexxvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.