Cancer? Heart Attack? CIGNA Says Walk It Off

One of CIGNA's advertising taglines is 'A Business of Caring.' Lets pick a better CIGNA tagline. Vote on your favorite or tell us a better one at http://sickforprofit.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• cigna
• edward
• hanway
• health
• insurance
• public
• option
• universal
• healthcare
• barack
• obama
• unitedhealth

[benstolen59]

If you murder someone and can't afford a lawyer, one will be hired for you at tax payers expense. They will also provide you with a bible while your in jail, along with free medical care.

Now on the other hand, if you're a law abiding, taxpaying citizen, and happen to get real sick, either your insurance company kills you, or if you have no insurance you die cheaper. What a great country this is.

[worldmayhem]

its time for these greedy insurance companies to be put out of business, their execs locked up and a new system put in place.

[RELATEDXXX]

keep believing in your plastic jesus & trickle down b.s. :

[whoo689]

@whoo689 And for god sakes, we need to SERIOUSLY do something about the actual prices. Increasing insurance won't mean a damn thing if prices keep rising to ridiculous levels. In the long run, lowering prices tremendously so most people can afford the stuff regardless of income level seems much more efficient than simply giving more coverage.

Not saying that's easy, but it should've at least been tried by Obama and the Dems. But they ignored THAT aspect.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 Plus, isn't insurance supposed to INSURE against catastrophes? Health insurance today seems to encourage moral hazard with ALL the stuff that's covered, even routine shit. If you get a relatively cheap doctor's visit, you should pay for it mostly out-of-pocket or save up with something like an MSA. Don't rely so much on the insurance. The overreliance on insurance seems to be a huge driver of the increase in price. We have insulated consumers from their healthcare choices.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 And if the patients want MORE coverage down the line, let them ask for it of their insurer and pay a slightly higher fee.

But the way gov't is treating private insurance now, the actuarial estimations and premium-setting just can't be done. I understand there are some who can't afford insurance no matter what, and we should help those people, but for those who CAN well-afford the coverage, esp. higher-risk ones, they should have to pay their fair share.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 I mean, to a certain extent, why SHOULDN'T riskier patients pay higher premiums? It seems only fair, if you ask me. And forcing insurers to cover a WIDE range of shit for even the most basic plans sounds insane. Let consumers decide what they want in their plans and negotiate with the insurers, provided there's enough competition (if we were to repeal things like McCarran-Ferguson, that is). I think consumers are smart enough to know how much coverage THEY need.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 -can't set liftetime caps

-no dropping coverage

-no preexisting condition denials

-maximum per-year copay limit

-kids can stay on parents coverage til 26 (which is weird, because 18 is legally an adult and 21 is the age for alcohol and gambling)

You let private insurance remain a business all these decades, yet you want to pretend like it's a charity and regulate it as one. But you can't have it both ways. That will be a disaster.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 A few insurers now are dropping their coverage of kids altogether, in a sense. Many have raised premiums. Whether this is due to the healthcare law remains to be seen, but I don't doubt the possibility. There are so many regulations tying the hands of the insurers to price insurance and offer more flexible plans that they don't have a lot of options, you know.

If you wanted a better insurance system, why didn't we just get a public option or high-risk pools or something?

[whoo689]

@whoo689 It's so weird to see so many liberals bitch and get all surprised because PRIVATE BUSINESS (in this case the insurers) is acting EXACTLY in the way that we would expect it to, given the current incentives. Why are you surprised?? Did you REALLY think a private insurer with limited funds was gonna give EVERYONE the same premiums regardless of risk, insurance ANYONE who asked for it, and give a free pass to the VERY EXPENSIVE patients?? come on

[whoo689]

@whoo689 I'm not saying the situation is perfect or near-perfect, or that some gov't regulation or a public option is unnecessary or undesirable. But I am trying to be objective here. Why are preexisting conditions denied? Is it JUST BECAUSE the insurers are "greedy"? NO, of course not. Preexisting condition people COST A LOT OF MONEY. I'm not saying refusing care is desirable or necessarily a good thing, but private insurance is a business, unfortunately.