That would be a fairly cruddy day discovering you can’t continue your cancer treatment because your health insurance canceled on you. I’m not sure the punitives needed to be that high though. Wish I knew more about the company.
I am so happy the insurance company lost. Now she needs to go after the doctor who refused to continue treating her after the insurance company refused to pay.
What happen the doctors oath that they take before the are licensed?
I am not sure the whole truth was being told here. If I am not mistaken, didn’t she lie on her application and took it out just before she had breast cancer (knowing she needed it)?
If she has the policy for years, then I would agree 100% with the judgement. But I think their may have been aplication fraud on this one. If so, the fraud of getting insurance just before you need it as well as the 9mm judgement results in Americans paying more for their healthcare.
Swambo…..in response to your suggestion that she goes after the doctor as well, it would not be him/her who determines whether s/he should continue treating the individual or not; it’s the hospital. If the doctor can not treat her at the medical facility where s/he practices, then there is nothing that s/he can do. In addition, unlike doctors who have a moral obligation to help those individuals under the Hypocratic Oath that they take, hospitals are in the business of making money – just like any other business.
I cannot believe they had incentives for their people to cancel policyholders coverages. If I was on the jury, I would have made them pay double this amount.
Rosie,
You would only make them pay double??? Are you evil or something, she should have gotten at least 100 million for all that!
The good part about a higher settlement is that me, you and everyone else can pay for it. This allows health care cost to rise even more, which is what we all want, right? Ooops, I forgot the left way of doing things, have judges grant these kind of judgements all day long and then expect healthcare cost to come down! I learned that from liberal economics 101! What I love about liberals is that they make all the sense in the world!
This verdict is justified due to the bonus plan for cancellations for patients with “costly” treatment. The bonus was two-fold with compensation based upon (1) the # of policy cancellations w/active treatment and (2) $$$ results. One of their former executives interviewed with my company and tried to “sell” that idea. Neither was employed by my company…
If there is no gap in coverage the pre-existing condition is covered. The agent advised her she could switch coverage to HealthNet and save money. The analyst that cancelled her poliicy received a bonus based upon “$6M is savings” from policies she canceled as a Senior Analyst. A few of you have call this a “win for women” however it was a woman that decided to cancel this policy with the knowledge the customer was suffering from breast cancer.
In response to the Insure Exec posting… All the more reason to have a national heatlh care plan. Why doesn’t our country come to its senses and allow free medical treatment to all Americans.
She may have lied and if she did, she lied to stay alive.
This is probably the only time I have ever agreed with a jury verdict in this matter. Insurance policies for autos, buildings and “injury” claims are one thing but to “f” with people w/helath issues and their health insurance is beyond disgusting. The actions of Health Net and many other health care insurance companies are sickening and deserved to be punished in order to stop this behavior.
I support socialized medicine but I don’t see a candidate before us that could build in the safety-nets required to prevent fraud. Medicare is as antiquated at the tax code but “change” is not something Congress truly embraces. They’d rather pass blame than legislation that truly impacts the security of this country… But then again, Congress approved Chertoff for the #1 position in Homeland Security and he had defended a doctor who laundered money through his clinic to fund terrorism.
If this jackpot winner had kept her previous policy, there would have been no such problem.
According to the reports I have read, she flat out lied, deliberately or carelessly, on her application to HealthNet. She did not disclose material facts about her health history. She lied in order to save money, not to save her life.
HealthNet was entitled to rescind her policy. They don’t issue and then cancel policies where the application has been completed truthfully. If you want her medical expenses to be paid, then arrange for it to be done by a taxpayer funded state program, not by the insurance company she lied to. Alternatively, you could organize a fund-raising drive for the liar.
Paying bonuses to employees to do what HealthNet is legally entitled to do is not immoral or reprehensible. Why should people who truthfully fill out an application have to pay higher premiums in order to finance the medical expenses of those who lie?
She should have kept her previous policy and not lied to HealthNet. She did not deserve to have the HealthNet policy.
It is a shame that HealthNet is not articulate enough to defend itself. Its actions were entirely justified.
This liar and her lawyer now share a huge jackpot thanks to a judge with a prejudiced attitude.
I would like to lie on an insurance application and then be rewarded by a $9 million windfall. Could someone help me with that?
Your prejudiced attitudes are not constructive. Here is something for you hypocrites to think about.
If you had the responsibility of running a health insurance company and keeping it financially solvent, how would you run the company with regards to liars who lie on insurance applications in order to get a lower premium out of you?
Bear in mind that if you exhaustively check out all applicants before you issue a policy, the additional cost will unavoidably cause you to charge higher premiums to finance the additional operating cost, making your company less competitive in the market place. You have to get new business to stay in business.
That is why more in-depth checking is done when significant claims are made shortly after policy issue. Is it immoral to operate on the basis that most people are honest so you are enabled to pay the higher cost of more thorough checking only when necessary ?
Unless you have a good answer to this, those of you who take joy in the thought of punishing health insurance companies, are nothing but hypocritical jerks who have nothing positive to offer on this subject.
This is not a “win for women” or for America. It is a win for liars and prejudiced hypocrites. It is a loss for honesty and integrity in this society.
That would be a fairly cruddy day discovering you can’t continue your cancer treatment because your health insurance canceled on you. I’m not sure the punitives needed to be that high though. Wish I knew more about the company.
I am so happy the insurance company lost. Now she needs to go after the doctor who refused to continue treating her after the insurance company refused to pay.
What happen the doctors oath that they take before the are licensed?
What Me Worry. Gues who my new carrier is effective 3/1/08.
Health Net in New York
I am not sure the whole truth was being told here. If I am not mistaken, didn’t she lie on her application and took it out just before she had breast cancer (knowing she needed it)?
If she has the policy for years, then I would agree 100% with the judgement. But I think their may have been aplication fraud on this one. If so, the fraud of getting insurance just before you need it as well as the 9mm judgement results in Americans paying more for their healthcare.
Swambo…..in response to your suggestion that she goes after the doctor as well, it would not be him/her who determines whether s/he should continue treating the individual or not; it’s the hospital. If the doctor can not treat her at the medical facility where s/he practices, then there is nothing that s/he can do. In addition, unlike doctors who have a moral obligation to help those individuals under the Hypocratic Oath that they take, hospitals are in the business of making money – just like any other business.
I cannot believe they had incentives for their people to cancel policyholders coverages. If I was on the jury, I would have made them pay double this amount.
Rosie,
You would only make them pay double??? Are you evil or something, she should have gotten at least 100 million for all that!
The good part about a higher settlement is that me, you and everyone else can pay for it. This allows health care cost to rise even more, which is what we all want, right? Ooops, I forgot the left way of doing things, have judges grant these kind of judgements all day long and then expect healthcare cost to come down! I learned that from liberal economics 101! What I love about liberals is that they make all the sense in the world!
This verdict is justified due to the bonus plan for cancellations for patients with “costly” treatment. The bonus was two-fold with compensation based upon (1) the # of policy cancellations w/active treatment and (2) $$$ results. One of their former executives interviewed with my company and tried to “sell” that idea. Neither was employed by my company…
Another article I read on this said that she failed to disclose pre-existng cancer.
If there is no gap in coverage the pre-existing condition is covered. The agent advised her she could switch coverage to HealthNet and save money. The analyst that cancelled her poliicy received a bonus based upon “$6M is savings” from policies she canceled as a Senior Analyst. A few of you have call this a “win for women” however it was a woman that decided to cancel this policy with the knowledge the customer was suffering from breast cancer.
In response to the Insure Exec posting… All the more reason to have a national heatlh care plan. Why doesn’t our country come to its senses and allow free medical treatment to all Americans.
She may have lied and if she did, she lied to stay alive.
This is probably the only time I have ever agreed with a jury verdict in this matter. Insurance policies for autos, buildings and “injury” claims are one thing but to “f” with people w/helath issues and their health insurance is beyond disgusting. The actions of Health Net and many other health care insurance companies are sickening and deserved to be punished in order to stop this behavior.
I support socialized medicine but I don’t see a candidate before us that could build in the safety-nets required to prevent fraud. Medicare is as antiquated at the tax code but “change” is not something Congress truly embraces. They’d rather pass blame than legislation that truly impacts the security of this country… But then again, Congress approved Chertoff for the #1 position in Homeland Security and he had defended a doctor who laundered money through his clinic to fund terrorism.
If this jackpot winner had kept her previous policy, there would have been no such problem.
According to the reports I have read, she flat out lied, deliberately or carelessly, on her application to HealthNet. She did not disclose material facts about her health history. She lied in order to save money, not to save her life.
HealthNet was entitled to rescind her policy. They don’t issue and then cancel policies where the application has been completed truthfully. If you want her medical expenses to be paid, then arrange for it to be done by a taxpayer funded state program, not by the insurance company she lied to. Alternatively, you could organize a fund-raising drive for the liar.
Paying bonuses to employees to do what HealthNet is legally entitled to do is not immoral or reprehensible. Why should people who truthfully fill out an application have to pay higher premiums in order to finance the medical expenses of those who lie?
She should have kept her previous policy and not lied to HealthNet. She did not deserve to have the HealthNet policy.
It is a shame that HealthNet is not articulate enough to defend itself. Its actions were entirely justified.
This liar and her lawyer now share a huge jackpot thanks to a judge with a prejudiced attitude.
I would like to lie on an insurance application and then be rewarded by a $9 million windfall. Could someone help me with that?
Your prejudiced attitudes are not constructive. Here is something for you hypocrites to think about.
If you had the responsibility of running a health insurance company and keeping it financially solvent, how would you run the company with regards to liars who lie on insurance applications in order to get a lower premium out of you?
Bear in mind that if you exhaustively check out all applicants before you issue a policy, the additional cost will unavoidably cause you to charge higher premiums to finance the additional operating cost, making your company less competitive in the market place. You have to get new business to stay in business.
That is why more in-depth checking is done when significant claims are made shortly after policy issue. Is it immoral to operate on the basis that most people are honest so you are enabled to pay the higher cost of more thorough checking only when necessary ?
Unless you have a good answer to this, those of you who take joy in the thought of punishing health insurance companies, are nothing but hypocritical jerks who have nothing positive to offer on this subject.
This is not a “win for women” or for America. It is a win for liars and prejudiced hypocrites. It is a loss for honesty and integrity in this society.