A Government run emergency adjudication board would be put into place that would have vast powers to act on a "stat" basis to reverse unjustified claims denials or delays and the yanking of coverage for the very sick. In addition, if the percentage of board overrides in a given period for a company reaches a certain level, a "trigger" would be pulled in which the Government would be allowed to petition the courts to have the offending company placed into receivership with the risk of investor equity being wiped out. With this threat in mind, the nature of investor pressure on company management would be quickly be changed!
The state insurance regulatory bodies have been asleep at the switch with respect to banning last minute yanking of coverage. There is a model that can be used for crafting this ban. With life insurance, in all states except for one, there is a two-year (one in the one state) in which insurance company can yank a policy if there is material error or omission on the application. After the constestability period has passed, the policy cannot be yank except in the case of proven serious fraud. The same model could be used with individual health insurance. in which the policy cannot be canceled after the constestability period. It was the association of state insurance regulators that devised the alphabet collection of standardized Medicare supplement insurance products, which did much to clean up the sorry state of that business then. Why can't the same be done with health insurance?
Both climate change and tobacco control advocates use the same smoke and mirrors to fool the uninformed public. Both manipulate data and exaggerate conclusions to spread fear across the globe. Each have learned from one another and the socialist control mindset that was set in motion under the Nazi regime. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and the masses will believe a big lie rather than a smaller one are 2 quotes that apply here.
About five or ten years ago, Canadian banks wanted to merge/acquire/etc in order to "compete in the modern environment that the world today presents", or whatever bafflegab was used at the time.
The Chretien government told the banks that it would block any attempt to merge the five big Canadian banks.
(Remember Chretien? His administration didn't want to invade Iraq "without explicit support from the United Nations"?)
Well, a few days ago, I read in the Globe & Mail that Canadian banks were doing very well, and that their administrators were on their way to making large bonuses. "I wonder if they'll be giving 10% of their bonuses to the government regulators who refused their merger plans", was my first thought.
Pages