Originally Posted by DaleMN

Total BS

brilliant conversational return.


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...ct-health-care

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12693

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/81478

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie: I'm not being sarcastic here. I've heard of VERY few cases of people successfully suing their insurance companies, largely because the legalese in the contracts stipulate that only 'gross negligence'-levels of malfeasance qualify (not to be confused with suing a doctor for malpractice).

In California, they said you couldn't kick people off their plans due to a new cancer diagnosis - so now they kick you off with NO explanation, coincidentally when you get cancer. The law of unintended consequences at it's worst.

It's easy find numerous references to the number of people being kicked off their health plans (one reason is from 'lifetime maximums they never knew about that were a lot smaller than one would think). Sincerely, can you point me to some references regarding what you're talking about? I don't think it's terribly common - especially suing a health insurer successfully.

And as a side note, maybe these 'lifetime maximum' limits wouldn't be so bad if we were paying comparable prices to the rest of the world (as in my example where an ER visit cost 1/5 the 'local' price when I went to a hospital in Montreal as opposed to the Greater Boston area)

Are you saying you don't have the right to sue your insurance company for denied treatment authorization?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

brilliant conversational return.

TY