PDA

View Full Version : Is health-care reform constitutional?



Eric Johnson
03-22-2010, 01:15 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions

http://tinyurl.com/yjtcxrj

Is health-care reform constitutional?

By Randy E. Barnett
Sunday, March 21, 2010

With the House set to vote on health-care legislation, the congressional debate on the issue seems to be nearing its conclusion. But if the bill does become law, the battle over federal control of health care will inevitably shift to the courts. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, has said he will file a legal challenge to the bill, arguing in a column this month that reform legislation "violate[s] the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments." On Friday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced that they will file a federal lawsuit if health-care reform legislation passes.

-more-

Franco
03-22-2010, 01:26 PM
I heard today that over 40 states will be contesting just that. This should get really interesting. ;-)

Koolaid
03-22-2010, 01:45 PM
I can't really say too much about the issue and if it applied to this specific contesting, but I heard an analyst same something to the effect of having medicare and medicaid as precedent that there is a small chance of this working.

Cody Covey
03-22-2010, 01:59 PM
the argument they are using for it being unconstitutional is that the federal government can't mandate that you buy a product. Which health INSURANCE is a product that some people tend to forget. At last count 38 states have papers filed in their state legislature that says they won't mandate their citizens to have health insurance 2 have already passed it and there still a few more that said they are currently writing the bills. Medicare and Medicaid have nothing to do with the argument about the constitutionality of the bill.

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 02:11 PM
the argument they are using for it being unconstitutional is that the federal government can't mandate that you buy a product. Which health INSURANCE is a product that some people tend to forget. At last count 38 states have papers filed in their state legislature that says they won't mandate their citizens to have health insurance 2 have already passed it and there still a few more that said they are currently writing the bills. Medicare and Medicaid have nothing to do with the argument about the constitutionality of the bill.
Actually, nothing in the legislation mandates that you buy insurance. However, if you do not you are subject to a tax. Employers face a mandate which is justified by interstate commerce considerations. States do not force a mandate but lose Federal funding if they do not go along. I think that a successful challenge is highly unlikely. However, the Court has become so political that anything is possible.

Cody Covey
03-22-2010, 02:15 PM
how is the mandate for individuals different than for employers. You either do it or you are faced with a fine, correct?

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 02:30 PM
how is the mandate for individuals different than for employers. You either do it or you are faced with a fine, correct?
There are no real limits of what Congress can do in establishing a tax. They are perfectly able to say, for example, that people without health insurance impose a cost on the general public and must pay a tax to fund programs to treat the uninsured. An individual is then free to choose whether to buy insurance or pay the tax. What would make that un-Constitutional?

Hoosier
03-22-2010, 02:37 PM
There are no real limits of what Congress can do in establishing a tax. They are perfectly able to say, for example, that people without health insurance impose a cost on the general public and must pay a tax to fund programs to treat the uninsured. An individual is then free to choose whether to buy insurance or pay the tax. What would make that un-Constitutional?


I think you're basically saying there is no limit to the power of the federal government. If they can force you into anything they want by imposing a tax, and then jail for not paying that tax; then their power is limitless. Have we come to that point? I think we are getting real close. There has to be a line they can't cross, where would you draw that line?

Franco
03-22-2010, 02:42 PM
This entire Health Care fiasco reminds me of a famous Thomas Jefferson quote;

When the People fear the Government, we have Tyranny.
When the Government fears the People, we have Freedom!

We have elected Tyrants!

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 02:44 PM
I think you're basically saying there is no limit to the power of the federal government. If they can force you into anything they want by imposing a tax, and then jail for not paying that tax; then their power is limitless. Have we come to that point? I think we are getting real close. There has to be a line they can't cross, where would you draw that line?
There are many limits of Federal power, but not too many when it comes to taxation. These were granted in the original Constitution except for those granted in the 16th Amendment ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."). Even at the time of the Revolution, the issue was not the taxes levied but the fact that they were levied without representation. That is the people's defense. Vote the bums out. Politicians have long known that the electorate is more likely to vote politicians out for raising taxes than for any other act.

Cody Covey
03-22-2010, 03:00 PM
the 16th amendment deals with income tax. taxes still have the limits of needing to be enumerated. The government does not have the right to tax on inactivity of commerce the constitution only deals with activity of commerce so that will have to be decided in courts.

HuntsmanTollers
03-22-2010, 03:50 PM
I understand the federal government has the ability to tax. Not going to argue that or the limits of what should be taxed. However, when has the federal government set different limits on taxation just based upon what state you live in?

Hoosier
03-22-2010, 04:02 PM
There are many limits of Federal power, but not too many when it comes to taxation. These were granted in the original Constitution except for those granted in the 16th Amendment ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."). Even at the time of the Revolution, the issue was not the taxes levied but the fact that they were levied without representation. That is the people's defense. Vote the bums out. Politicians have long known that the electorate is more likely to vote politicians out for raising taxes than for any other act.

This in effect gives the federal unlimited power. If they can take away your freedom to determine what commerce to engage in, then they can totally control you. They are using taxes as a weapon, against their own people.

I don't believe the election booth is any longer a place we as Americans can change government, that change will only come at the point of a gun.

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 04:13 PM
This in effect gives the federal unlimited power. If they can take away your freedom to determine what commerce to engage in, then they can totally control you. They are using taxes as a weapon, against their own people.

I don't believe the election booth is any longer a place we as Americans can change government, that change will only come at the point of a gun.
Democratic elections provide an opportunity for the electorate to affect their government in dramatic ways, but do not guarantee wisdom. However, I would certainly rather trust the electorate than some idiot with a gun who thinks he should be making the decisions on how we should all live.

Hoosier
03-22-2010, 04:23 PM
Democratic elections provide an opportunity for the electorate to affect their government in dramatic ways, but do not guarantee wisdom. However, I would certainly rather trust the electorate than some idiot with a gun who thinks he should be making the decisions on how we should all live.


Ironic that someone who supports this current fiasco would put these words in a sentence.

duckheads
03-22-2010, 04:25 PM
How about at the hands of all the idiots they bus to the voting booths?

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 04:48 PM
[/b]


Ironic that someone who supports this current fiasco would put these words in a sentence.
What we have with this program is a rare situation. A President and Congressional majority were elected and did, with respect to health care, exactly whast they said they would do as the most important part of their proposed political agenda. How dare they!


How about at the hands of all the idiots they bus to the voting booths?
You mean the registered voters who actually went to the polls instead of staying home to cry about the world? This President and the Congressional majority won by one of the largest majorities in American political history. It is possible that they may leave office by a similar margin in four three years. However, between now and then I hope they are as direct in governing as Bush and Reagan were with more tenuous electoral mandates in their first terms (a thin majority in one case, and a minority of votes in the other). I've sent money to the Democratic party every month since 2005. I see no reason to stop now. Hopefully most of you are doing the same with the party of your choice. I would rather see both parties feeling obligated to regular citizens rather than to pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, investment bankers, or attorneys.

road kill
03-22-2010, 05:20 PM
What we have with this program is a rare situation. A President and Congressional majority were elected and did, with respect to health care, exactly whast they said they would do as the most important part of their proposed political agenda. How dare they!


You mean the registered voters who actually went to the polls instead of staying home to cry about the world? This President and the Congressional majority won by one of the largest majorities in American political history. It is possible that they may leave office by a similar margin in four three years. However, between now and then I hope they are as direct in governing as Bush and Reagan were with more tenuous electoral mandates in their first terms (a thin majority in one case, and a minority of votes in the other). I've sent money to the Democratic party every month since 2005. I see no reason to stop now. Hopefully most of you are doing the same with the party of your choice. I would rather see both parties feeling obligated to regular citizens rather than to pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, investment bankers, or attorneys.
It makes me sick to my stomach to have to say this, on this Mr. Yardley is correct.
You want to blame somebody for this, blame ourselves collectively.

Though NO ONE will admit it, if the truth be told many that are so desperately against Obama now did nothing in the last campaign and in November.
Plouffe did everything, and I mean everything he needed to to win.



Now, I learned a long time ago to be very careful for what I wished for, because I just might get it.


You secular progressives have got what you wanted, "Nationalized Healthcare" now.......show me I was wrong on this.:D





rk

Buzz
03-22-2010, 06:33 PM
, "Nationalized Healthcare" now.......show me I was wrong on this.:D


rk

This is a definition of nationalization:


Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated by or owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalisation, but may also be municipalization.

Where specifically is anything of this nature contained in the bill?

M&K's Retrievers
03-22-2010, 07:10 PM
This is a definition of nationalization:



Where specifically is anything of this nature contained in the bill?

When all the insurance carriers withdraw from writing health insurance since it will be impossible to make a profit under the health careless requirements, we will be left with the single payer system which is what the Libs wanted all along. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 07:31 PM
When all the insurance carriers withdraw from writing health insurance since it will be impossible to make a profit under the health careless requirements, we will be left with the single payer system which is what the Libs wanted all along. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.
Medicare is a single payer system. Who administer payments? How does the cost per claim and the time required to process compare with commercial health insurance plans?

M&K's Retrievers
03-22-2010, 08:00 PM
Medicare is a single payer system. Who administer payments? How does the cost per claim and the time required to process compare with commercial health insurance plans?

I'm sure your have a butt load of stats but having said that, most of the providers I have visited with complain about Medicare delays and cuts. This includes Docs and Hospitals billing depts.

JDogger
03-22-2010, 08:18 PM
Is Health care constitutional?

I don't know.

Is undeclared war that goes on and on?

JD

dnf777
03-22-2010, 08:30 PM
I'm sure your have a butt load of stats but having said that, most of the providers I have visited with complain about Medicare delays and cuts. This includes Docs and Hospitals billing depts.

I'll be the first to complain about their reimbursement rates, but at least you do know your patients will be approved for the care they need, won't be dropped and not be able to follow up anymore, and you will be paid in a timely fashion, and not down-graded and "bundled".....ie NOT PAID.

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 08:47 PM
I'm sure your have a butt load of stats but having said that, most of the providers I have visited with complain about Medicare delays and cuts. This includes Docs and Hospitals billing depts.
No boatload of stats. Claims are processed by pretty much the same companies providing private health insurance with payments typically made within two weeks. The process is completely standardized and integrated into most practice management software systems, with predominantly electronic processing. As with all third party systems, the people who get screwed are the smaller practitioners that process a low volume of claims, do not have automated systems, and attempt to do things manually. My long time family doctor fell into this group and finally made a business decisions not to accept any form of insurance from anyone. Medicare was the last group he shut down.

For physicians, the fundamental problem of Medicare is that the rates are too low. For other types of providers, Medicare rates are often the highest they receive relative to other insurers. By the way, Medicare claim administration expenses run about 2%, which is a small faction of the cost of most private plans. One of the reasons is that private pans incur substantial costs trying to determine if another payer might be responsible for the cost (coordination of benefits, subrogation of benefits, split claims, etc.).

For institutional providers, the biggest nightmare of Medicare is uncertainty concerning the rates that will be paid. Prices are based of complex cost analyses and the rates paid are simply estimates pending a future audit. The rate setting process does nt encourage efficiency and can result in significant surprises when audits are complete.

Medicare actually pays the intermediaries in advance, providing them with trust accounts against which claim payments are drawn pending periodic reconciliations.

dnf777
03-22-2010, 09:03 PM
Is Health care constitutional?

I don't know.

Is undeclared war that goes on and on?

JD

I don't know either. But I do know that if the gov't is going to take away half my paycheck (all taxes together and anticipated increases that are coming) I'd rather it go to American roads and bridges and providing healthcare to American children and families........rather than blowing up Iraqi and Afghan roads and bridges and families, then paying to rebuild them!

And yes, healthcare is expensive, and will likely recieve 100% of the blame for any forthcoming tax increases, but let's not forget about two wars, one in particular, that has cost more than all this healthcare combined thus far, and has had the net effect of replacing one untrustworthy president with another. Pardon me, replacing TWO untrustworthy presidents with TWO more!

M&K's Retrievers
03-23-2010, 01:50 AM
I'll be the first to complain about their reimbursement rates, but at least you do know your patients will be approved for the care they need, won't be dropped and not be able to follow up anymore, and you will be paid in a timely fashion, and not down-graded and "bundled".....ie NOT PAID.

Dave, I've been writing health insurance coverage for employer groups and individuals for over 35 years and I have never had anyone terminated or dropped for anything other than for non payment of premium. I get real tired of hearing about these horror stories where the insusance company cancels coverage at the first sign of a claim. Yes, there are many fly by night carriers out there that write crap coverage through their company reps, not independent agents.

I'm quite sure you get pissed off when people outside your profession take potshots at your expertise. I'm sure you'll understand when an insurance professional feels the same way. If insurance companies were making so much money raping and pillaging the public, their would be a lot more of them competing for the gravy. There will be even fewer now.

By the way, what drives the cost of insurance up? Could it be the cost of the care, the paperwork, the mandates, litagation, CYA testing?

dnf777
03-23-2010, 05:16 AM
Dave, I've been writing health insurance coverage for employer groups and individuals for over 35 years and I have never had anyone terminated or dropped for anything other than for non payment of premium. I get real tired of hearing about these horror stories where the insusance company cancels coverage at the first sign of a claim. Yes, there are many fly by night carriers out there that write crap coverage through their company reps, not independent agents.

I'm quite sure you get pissed off when people outside your profession take potshots at your expertise. I'm sure you'll understand when an insurance professional feels the same way. If insurance companies were making so much money raping and pillaging the public, their would be a lot more of them competing for the gravy. There will be even fewer now.

By the way, what drives the cost of insurance up? Could it be the cost of the care, the paperwork, the mandates, litagation, CYA testing?

You make good points, and I agree with you last sentence wholeheartedly. to support my claims, however, I would point you to recent court decisions that held several major insurance carriers responsible to repay physicians and hospitals for so-called "bundling" of payments as well as downgrading charges at their whim. I didn't have time to research, but the info is readily available. I believe former senate majority leader Bill Frist's Tennessee based company was involved, if not impugned in those cases.

Yes, I do get peeved when people take unjustified shots at my profession, but not when they are justified, which unfortunatley is sometimes the case. Medicine, especially surgery, is the most regulated, policed (self and otherwise), and scrutinized profession I can think of, except maybe pesticide application under a democratic EPA. ;-)

I wouldn't neglect to include American's fatty, caloric-packed, processed-food diets in the blame game of health care costs. The fact our life-expectancy is anywhere near where it is, is a testament to the miracle of modern medicine! Think of how much that "we" eat that comes in boxes, wrappers, cellophane bags, or handed to us from a teenager in a window wearing a headphone.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 07:10 AM
Dave, I've been writing health insurance coverage for employer groups and individuals for over 35 years and I have never had anyone terminated or dropped for anything other than for non payment of premium. I get real tired of hearing about these horror stories where the insusance company cancels coverage at the first sign of a claim. Yes, there are many fly by night carriers out there that write crap coverage through their company reps, not independent agents.

....
How's this for an example? My company purchased its health insurance through Guardian for a period of several years when we received notice that services in the future would be provided through a joint venture of by Guardian (providing hospital coverage) and HealthNet (providing major medical). There were some problems in transition, but it stabilized. After two years we received another notice that the joint venture was being terminated and that responsibility for our coverage would come through HealthNet in the future. This was followed by a letter of non-renewal. At the same time we received a letter saying that the renewal letter would be coming from HealthNet and asking us to be patient. It also said that all future premium payments needed to be sent to HealthNet and that we would receive an invoice. No invoice or renewal letter came prior to the renewal date. Repeated phone calls went unanswered. Guardian indicated that they could not accept premium payment because the joint venture had been dissolved.

Five weeks following the renewal date we received a letter from HealthNet stating that all coverage had been terminated effective as of the prior renewal date because of "non-payment of premium" and a decision not to renew policies with small businesses. At its annual meeting that year, HealthNet announced the successful strategy they had followed to terminate coverage for unprofitable small business accounts and awarded a bonus to the staff person who had come up with the idea.

To rub salt in the wound, the fact that the cancellation was made retroactive meant that everyone covered had been without coverage for more than 30 days. Given my own medical problems, I went without insurance for four months until I managed to join an association plan during an open enrollment period. Everyone else obtained policies but with prior condition exclusions.

Gerry Clinchy
03-23-2010, 08:14 AM
Nobody has specifically mentioned what this does to our personal freedoms.

1) We presently can choose to purchase health insurance or not. That option will be removed with a tax penalty. (Although if you're going to have a penalty, I think it should be upon an individual rather than their employer. And the penalty should be a substantial one, no a slap on the wrist compared to the cost of actually purchasing coverage).

2) If someone wants to buy catastrophic coverage only, with a high deductible or a co-pay, it will simply no longer be available. Even Medicare has a co-pay.

Private insurors supplement Medicare with policies that absorb the co-pay. No need for that kind of private industry support with a program that has no co-pay.

3) A young, healthy person who is not married; or unable to have children; or doesn't want to have children, will not be able to purchase a policy without maternity or pedicatric care. Neither will a woman who is past child-bearing age.

4) Since there will no longer be any financial advantage for those people who don't smoke, stay slim, and avoid substance abuse (no pre-existing conditions are excluded), I'd bet the farm that the govt eventually comes up with some kind of "tax" or "penalty" for smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption. In Japan, there is already a monitoring of waist-size with a penalty attached.

I thought this provision was interesting (if accurate)

If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

Why would this not also apply to non-physician owners? This provision is ancillary to the limitation of physicians owning hospitals unless they are approved Medicare providers by Feb. 2010 (oops, too late under the Senate bill, but extended to Dec. 2010 under the "reconcilation").

The Senate bill provided for $750/employee penalty for employers of 101 or more) for not providing insurance, but that is raised to $2000 or $3000 under the reconcilation. Quite a difference between the two.

Do we really expect that taxes on medical device mfrs and pharma companies will yield a long-term cost reduction? Costs of additional taxes are usually passed onto the consumer of the products. Of course, govt holds the purse-strings in determining reimbursements or Medicare and Medicaid; and likely, at least indirectly, under these new programs (via the rate restraints on private insurors as long as the private insurors remain in this business).

So, those companies producing those goods, if compelled to offset those penalty charges on their balance sheet & unable to raise prices ... it seems logical that they will have to trim other expenses. R&D maybe? Lay off some employees maybe?

No problem those people can always go to work for the IRS, which will need 16,000 more employees to make sure everyone pays their penalties or for their health insurance.

In addition to the 10% tax on tanning salon services, there is a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery. That last tax is likely only to affect those that can afford elective cosmetic surgery .. the rest of us will just stay ugly :-)

badbullgator
03-23-2010, 08:15 AM
Actually, nothing in the legislation mandates that you buy insurance. However, if you do not you are subject to a tax. Employers face a mandate which is justified by interstate commerce considerations. States do not force a mandate but lose Federal funding if they do not go along. I think that a successful challenge is highly unlikely. However, the Court has become so political that anything is possible.


Yeah that is NOTHING like making you buy something. Kind of like a guy walking into a bank with a gun is not making anyone put money in his bag. You don;t have to but he will shoot you if you don't. Heck no forcing there:rolleyes:

road kill
03-23-2010, 08:17 AM
This is a definition of nationalization:

Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.

Where specifically is anything of this nature contained in the bill?


Ha Ha...you funny!!:D



rk

M&K's Retrievers
03-23-2010, 10:11 AM
How's this for an example? My company purchased its health insurance through Guardian for a period of several years when we received notice that services in the future would be provided through a joint venture of by Guardian (providing hospital coverage) and HealthNet (providing major medical). There were some problems in transition, but it stabilized. After two years we received another notice that the joint venture was being terminated and that responsibility for our coverage would come through HealthNet in the future. This was followed by a letter of non-renewal. At the same time we received a letter saying that the renewal letter would be coming from HealthNet and asking us to be patient. It also said that all future premium payments needed to be sent to HealthNet and that we would receive an invoice. No invoice or renewal letter came prior to the renewal date. Repeated phone calls went unanswered. Guardian indicated that they could not accept premium payment because the joint venture had been dissolved.

Five weeks following the renewal date we received a letter from HealthNet stating that all coverage had been terminated effective as of the prior renewal date because of "non-payment of premium" and a decision not to renew policies with small businesses. At its annual meeting that year, HealthNet announced the successful strategy they had followed to terminate coverage for unprofitable small business accounts and awarded a bonus to the staff person who had come up with the idea.

To rub salt in the wound, the fact that the cancellation was made retroactive meant that everyone covered had been without coverage for more than 30 days. Given my own medical problems, I went without insurance for four months until I managed to join an association plan during an open enrollment period. Everyone else obtained policies but with prior condition exclusions.

I'm certainly not going to dispute what happened to your company. I will say that -without knowing the details- it is illegal. Guardian Healthnet is still writing business in your neck of the woods so what happened was not as a result of their going out of business or cancelling a block of business which is generally the only way a company can cancel coverage. I'm curious what the Complaint Department of your State Insurance Department had to say about this action.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 10:35 AM
I'm certainly not going to dispute what happened to your company. I will say that -without knowing the details- it is illegal. Guardian Healthnet is still writing business in your neck of the woods so what happened was not as a result of their going out of business or canceling a block of business which is generally the only way a company can cancel coverage. I'm curious what the Complaint Department of your State Insurance Department had to say about this action.
What they did was to withdraw from writing policies as a joint venture in NJ according to the correspondence they sent us. That was done in 2007. Our policy was specifically written under NJ's small business program which mandates community rating for companies with fewer than 11 employees. Following cancellation, I gave all affected employees the amount of money that I would otherwise have contributed to their coverage and canceled the company plan altogether. I was the only one who was not able to obtain coverage at a lower price through NJ Blue Cross bith because I, unlike my staff, lived in PA and because of medical exclusions. I formed a separate company for my photography business to buy coverage for myself. I was initially denied coverage because of medical history (stroke, etc.), but joined the Chamber of Commerce and bought my policy through them during open enrollment. I considered filing a complaint against HealthNet but did not since everyone actually saved money and improved their coverage by not using them.

david gibson
03-23-2010, 10:53 AM
What we have with this program is a rare situation. A President and Congressional majority were elected and did, with respect to health care, exactly whast they said they would do as the most important part of their proposed political agenda. How dare they!


You mean the registered voters who actually went to the polls instead of staying home to cry about the world?


in a sense, that is true. but i would also be willing to bet that this was the most uninformed electorate in history. my son said kids were all out screaming and honking horns in the college apt. complex he lives in after the Obama was announced as the winner. many were his friends, and he knows well how little they stay informed. record numbers of lower educated and lower socioeconomic people went out and voted because they knew that Obama was going to increase their entitlements. he said it all along - spread the wealth.

when you rob peter to pay paul you can always count on paul's vote. and allow all the illegal paul's to vote and you get more votes.

liberalism is killing this country.

M&K's Retrievers
03-23-2010, 11:03 AM
I considered filing a complaint against HealthNet but did not since everyone actually saved money and improved their coverage by not using them.

I wish you had done that. Insurance Departments are generally pretty good at riding herd on companies trying to pull a fast one like this appears. If they cancelled a block of business, I'm suprised it wasn't brought to the department's or for that matter the press' attention by someone affected. Most states don't allow companies to laser out a block of unprofitable business while continuing to write business under another name.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 11:49 AM
I wish you had done that. Insurance Departments are generally pretty good at riding herd on companies trying to pull a fast one like this appears. If they cancelled a block of business, I'm suprised it wasn't brought to the department's or for that matter the press' attention by someone affected. Most states don't allow companies to laser out a block of unprofitable business while continuing to write business under another name.
My assumption was that they had simply stopped writing business as a joint venture in NJ. You probably know that better than I. They did discuss their "successful" strategy for withdrawing from the small company market at their next annual meeting, crediting it with having increased profits by several million as they awarded a special bonus to the staff person who developed the technique that was used. I have actually worked with a lot of health insurance companies over time and considered HealthNet to be by far the worst.

M&K's Retrievers
03-23-2010, 12:02 PM
My assumption was that they had simply stopped writing business as a joint venture in NJ. You probably know that better than I. They did discuss their "successful" strategy for withdrawing from the small company market at their next annual meeting, crediting it with having increased profits by several million as they awarded a special bonus to the staff person who developed the technique that was used. I have actually worked with a lot of health insurance companies over time and considered HealthNet to be by far the worst.

I've represented most of the major players over the years but have not had the "pleasure" of using Healthnet.