CMS Slaps Down Humana Over Lobbying L...

CMS Slaps Down Humana Over Lobbying Letter

There are 310 comments on the snafu-ed.blogspot.com story from Sep 23, 2009, titled CMS Slaps Down Humana Over Lobbying Letter. In it, snafu-ed.blogspot.com reports that:

The insurance company Humana is under fire from Medicare itself, for spreading misinformation about health insurance reform and its possible effects on Medicare coverage. Humana was sending letters to Humana Medicare members which were essentially lobbying their position, something not allowed.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at snafu-ed.blogspot.com.

First Prev
of 16
Next Last

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Memphis, TN

#316 Oct 20, 2009
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that they are looking at or considering changing their system in no way detracts from my statement that it appears to be better than our own. Note that they are not talking of doing away with universal health coverage, though some things currently covered may be reduced.
Grass is always greener on the other side...

They are tweaking instead of trying to break the entire system. Makes sense to try and fix. Democrats are considering breaking entire sysytem, tweaking, and slow death of private insurance.

Also, their population is about 1/4 of ours as well which makes their situation far more "manageable" than our 306 Million.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is, they probably need to reduce coverage.
Rationing is part of ALL government Health Care and reducing care is about the only way gov can slow cost explosions from Bankrupting gov resources/funding.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Once or twice in their lives they can take about a 30 day vacation at a health spa for a stress break paid for by their plan. They also get to collect their paycheck while on this break.
I can take a paid vacation for a month or 2 as well. I have months of vacation time accrued.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I have stated several times that I would be perfectly happy with a single payer system that provided MINIMUM coverage which could be increased with the use of supplemental policies available to individuals and through employers.
Redundancy costs a fortune and we're not even bringing up the issue of too many patients - too few "General Practitioners".

Many of the single payer systems around the world found that they couldn't provide adequate health care by themselves & are no forced to try and rebuild a private care sector.

We need to learn from others mistakes. Not repeat them IMO.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
If we keep the current system, I would like to see the government set up free health clinics that offer minimum services and act as clearing stations for those on Medicaid and without insurance. they would have to go to an aid station before a hospital unless they had a bonafide emergency.
Community Health Centers already exist (albeit in rough hoods) and they are trying to fund their expansion which also covers illegals since anyone with a pulse basically can use the service w/o ID.

Ever have to visit one of these? Can't imagine walking into one of these cesspools again with MY children.
http://www.hillscountyhealth.org/locations/he...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
The advantage of aid stations is that in the event of a natural disaster it would allow you to increase the availability of healthcare in a given area rapidly by shifting resources.
Sure. The more the merrier.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#317 Oct 20, 2009
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you also are making up crap about me ignoring insurance company abuses. Why do you have to lie about me, are your arguments that weak?
Do you even know the meaning of the word Hypocrite? I just gave you three examples that clearly shows that I can support things that I do not participate in (something you cannot seem to understand or will not accept). The only way it could be hypocrisy would be if I suggested that we abolish existing government healthcare (VA care, Medicaid, Medicare or CHIPS). I have not suggested that at all.
You on the other hand are suggesting that we abolish all private health insurance and replace it with a single payer but you do not want the same thing with the education system even though the same arguments apply. You are the hypocrite.
You are being a poor loser who has to try to make up stuff about me because you have failed to show that any of your opinions have any merit. Face the facts:
1. The letter Humana sent was accurate; it reflected what was stated by the CBO
2. No one has been able to post any law, rule, or regulation that was broken.
3. The federal government (CMS) told them to stop because the current administration disagreed with them on policy.
4. You have argued for allowing the government to abuse their power with because you don't like the insurance companies.
5. You make stupid assumption about my motives because you cannot dispute the facts.
Stupid assumptions are made based on your argument. You haven't presented anymore showing that is was perfectly legit and within the boundaries of their contract than we have presented showing it was not.

What we do know is that the government requested them to stop.....and they did. We also know they did not challenge the request publicly.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#318 Oct 21, 2009
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you also are making up crap about me ignoring insurance company abuses. Why do you have to lie about me, are your arguments that weak?
Do you even know the meaning of the word Hypocrite? I just gave you three examples that clearly shows that I can support things that I do not participate in (something you cannot seem to understand or will not accept). The only way it could be hypocrisy would be if I suggested that we abolish existing government healthcare (VA care, Medicaid, Medicare or CHIPS). I have not suggested that at all.
You on the other hand are suggesting that we abolish all private health insurance and replace it with a single payer but you do not want the same thing with the education system even though the same arguments apply. You are the hypocrite.
You are being a poor loser who has to try to make up stuff about me because you have failed to show that any of your opinions have any merit. Face the facts:
1. The letter Humana sent was accurate; it reflected what was stated by the CBO
2. No one has been able to post any law, rule, or regulation that was broken.
3. The federal government (CMS) told them to stop because the current administration disagreed with them on policy.
4. You have argued for allowing the government to abuse their power with because you don't like the insurance companies.
5. You make stupid assumption about my motives because you cannot dispute the facts.
I'm going to post this one more time. Hypocrite. If, as the insurance lobby intimates, that our premiums would go up if we institute a government option, why would they be against it? If it were true, they'd make more money. The truth is they don't want the competition. I guess you also approve of using taxpayer money to bailout AIG. Come on now, admit your insurance ties.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#319 Oct 21, 2009
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid assumptions are made based on your argument. You haven't presented anymore showing that is was perfectly legit and within the boundaries of their contract than we have presented showing it was not.
What we do know is that the government requested them to stop.....and they did. We also know they did not challenge the request publicly.
So you think I should post all of the laws and regulation that they did not break. Or perhaps you just would like me to post just the ones that you, CMS, or anyone else might think pertain but have failed specify. Your request is ridiculous, and you know it.

You offer compliance with the CMS request as proof that they were in the wrong. You really are a useless government sycophant that cannot think for yourself.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#320 Oct 21, 2009
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>I'm going to post this one more time. Hypocrite. If, as the insurance lobby intimates, that our premiums would go up if we institute a government option, why would they be against it? If it were true, they'd make more money. The truth is they don't want the competition. I guess you also approve of using taxpayer money to bailout AIG. Come on now, admit your insurance ties.
Less people paying more money does not equate to more profit. You realy should take an economics course. The insurance companies need people who are likey to pay more premiums than they would collect in benefits, that usualy means young healthy people who will likey choose the cheapest option. Unless you somehow think that government insurance will be more expensive than private coverage (and what would be the point of that) private companies would see the profitable part of the risk pool disapear and be forces to charge more per member remaining. Perhaps you think think that they will just majicaly pay out more money than they collect. Only goverment can do that.

Try again, I have been railing against TARP, since it was proposed. No private company should be too big to fail, not AIG not BOA, not CITI, not GM, no one.

You keep getting hung up on the lobbyist crap, your getting tiresome.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#321 Oct 21, 2009
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Less people paying more money does not equate to more profit. You realy should take an economics course. The insurance companies need people who are likey to pay more premiums than they would collect in benefits, that usualy means young healthy people who will likey choose the cheapest option. Unless you somehow think that government insurance will be more expensive than private coverage (and what would be the point of that) private companies would see the profitable part of the risk pool disapear and be forces to charge more per member remaining. Perhaps you think think that they will just majicaly pay out more money than they collect. Only goverment can do that.
Try again, I have been railing against TARP, since it was proposed. No private company should be too big to fail, not AIG not BOA, not CITI, not GM, no one.
You keep getting hung up on the lobbyist crap, your getting tiresome.
No where near as tiresome as your denials. Man up and admit your insurance ties. And by the way, since when are insurance premiums the sole source of the companies profits? When their overcompensated CEOs invest the insurance company reserves and lose money, why do they get rewarded with a bonus while raising premiums to cover their fuckups? Now you take an economics course. When should anyone get a bonus for losing money? You should lose your job. But AIG execs are all getting bonuses. No wonder you're an insurance company shill. Even when you fuckup you get paid more money.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#322 Oct 21, 2009
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>No where near as tiresome as your denials. Man up and admit your insurance ties. And by the way, since when are insurance premiums the sole source of the companies profits? When their overcompensated CEOs invest the insurance company reserves and lose money, why do they get rewarded with a bonus while raising premiums to cover their fuckups? Now you take an economics course. When should anyone get a bonus for losing money? You should lose your job. But AIG execs are all getting bonuses. No wonder you're an insurance company shill. Even when you fuckup you get paid more money.
You are losing it. If you think that premiums are not the major source of insurance company revenues then please tell us what you think they are. Investments help hedge against unpredicted costs that would have forced them into short term borrowing at higher rates. You seem to think that the companies just have lots of cash stuffed away in investments and are just using health insurance as a front. Most insurance companies (and most companies in general) have allot of long term debt.

And if you think the CEOs or other executive should lose their jobs when a company loses money, you will just have to take that up with the people who hire them and set their salaries, that’s usually the board of directors. If you don't like what they do then don't do business with that company.

If I don't like how the government run single payer operates, I cannot refuse to deal with them, and you insist on stuffing it down our throat with single payer because either you don’t realize that you are advocating for a monopoly, or somehow you think that good intensions will make everything better no matter how bad the policy is.

It doesn't matter to me if you delude yourself into thinking I work for an insurance company, I know it's not the case, an others who have read my posts (and are sane) can see that its not the case. It appears that nothing I say can persuade you, as you just can't imagine the possibility that you are wrong. That just makes you a persistent ignoramus.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#323 Oct 21, 2009
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
You are losing it. If you think that premiums are not the major source of insurance company revenues then please tell us what you think they are. Investments help hedge against unpredicted costs that would have forced them into short term borrowing at higher rates. You seem to think that the companies just have lots of cash stuffed away in investments and are just using health insurance as a front. Most insurance companies (and most companies in general) have allot of long term debt.
And if you think the CEOs or other executive should lose their jobs when a company loses money, you will just have to take that up with the people who hire them and set their salaries, that’s usually the board of directors. If you don't like what they do then don't do business with that company.
If I don't like how the government run single payer operates, I cannot refuse to deal with them, and you insist on stuffing it down our throat with single payer because either you don’t realize that you are advocating for a monopoly, or somehow you think that good intensions will make everything better no matter how bad the policy is.
It doesn't matter to me if you delude yourself into thinking I work for an insurance company, I know it's not the case, an others who have read my posts (and are sane) can see that its not the case. It appears that nothing I say can persuade you, as you just can't imagine the possibility that you are wrong. That just makes you a persistent ignoramus.
Since I'm one step ahead of you, what does that make you? And by the way. Tell me it wasn't bad investments that got AIG in trouble... Try reading this... http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSMA...
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#324 Oct 21, 2009
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Since I'm one step ahead of you, what does that make you? And by the way. Tell me it wasn't bad investments that got AIG in trouble... Try reading this... http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSMA...
You think so, go look up their stock quote on Google finance or Yahoo and look at the companies in the same grouping (property and casual insurance). Funny I don't see Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, Humana, BCBS, Wellpoint ... in that list. When I look at those companies and look for similar companies, AIG is not listed. Why do you think that is?

Also, why didn't bad investments take the other health insurance companies under also, even though they probably all lost value? Maybe its because most of revenue for health insurers comes from premiums and not investments? Your own example just put you two steps behind.
solidarity

Jensen Beach, FL

#325 Oct 4, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>How did you determine it was legal when the Federal Government said it violated Federal Rules?
Violation of rules of conduct! This is already predetermined for all contractors! Every year, contractors have to reiterate that they understand the basic ethical rules of the federal government. This is signed by all corporate contractors and employees by October of every year! The contractor for the government is legally considered an employee and all rules of behavior applies to this relationship (ethical/legal in nature). However, the rules of behavior is determined, not by a contract, but by what is determined already in governmental agency employment. Humana broke the policy of involving themselves in deception of customers invoking political issues (that is a no-no for any governmental contractor. It is like d in your are defaming your own father. I do think that Humana violated standards of ethics, but this is considered serious, if you are a contractor with the federals. However, recently, Humana violated more than that, they are abusing employees, discriminating employees, ostracizing employees, and violating a lot of ethical principles that are prohibited for a government federal contractor. I think that they are reaching a point where they have to be FIRED from Federal contracts and let other companies (with better ethical standards) contract with the government. Government has enough corruption in their hands to allow non ethical and corrupt companies to be their contractors. Humana was recently implicated in catering drug addicts of oxycodone and bringing them into their medication plans to increase enrollment volumes, from a very profitable national pool of oxycodone addicts. This is another example of un-ethical behavior of Humana in violation of basic CMS ethical rules of conduct and behavior. They know very well what is ethical and acceptable. They are not ignorant of what they do! They know well when they do something wrong!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 16
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Insurance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Al Franken: Health reform has made a difference... (Sep '10) 16 hr OINK MOMBACH 246
News Repeal or retain? Election opens final act for ... Aug 22 Hostis Publicus 12
News Repeal or retain? Election opens final act for ... Aug 21 Stephany McDowell 1
Braces covered by health insurance? Aug 14 tuf4311 1
News Why it Matters: Issues at stake in election Aug 14 mar 1
News Federal tax hike on cigarettes is criticized by... (Mar '09) Aug 4 Rock the Rock 61
Very upset with my situation.! Help, please (Feb '16) Jul '16 just axe me 9
More from around the web