I was watching an interesting news broadcast a few weeks ago that got the old gray matter churning a bit. It was an all too familiar situation where a well known health management organization refused treatment to a patient to the point that they died where they clearly had a very good chance of successful treatment. We can certainly look at all the contractual reasons and explanations, not the least of which is that these companies require us to give up our right to sue and to accept their judgments as a condition of the contract, etc, etc.
So here’s my question. Our bill of rights guarantee’s us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sounds simple enough but isn’t the refusal of medical care a simple breach of that first constitutional guarantee? Quite frankly, the constitution is in itself a legal declaration so isn’t any contract that attempts to refutiate that first guarantee automatically null and void? And further more, I don’t recall any part of constitutional law that allows, by vote or assignment, that allows these basic rights to be suspended for anything less that of war or a similar circumstance.
So, why isn’t our Federal Prosecutor’s taking these companies to court for breech of contract and attempting to circumvent the constitution, or more over, bringing them to justice for violation of the individual’s right to pursue life? And if this is the case, and understanding that planning in advance is also described at premeditation, why wouldn’t those that withhold medical care not be considered an act of premeditated manslaughter or perhaps murder?
We have laws that prevent anyone under the legal age of 18 from entering into or being held accountable for a contract. This exists because it is widely recognized that those under that age are not legally considered to be “adults” and therefore cannot be held accountable for these actions. If the government is going to treat it’s own citizens like children, should we not be legally protected from similar contracts that force us to give up our rights, for any reason?
Getting the old gray matter churning isn’t always a good thing. I wish they would stop all this nonsense so I can sink back into oblivion and be my regular boring self. I suppose that would be me in my pursuit of happiness …..
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
|
AverageJoe
|
Oct 22 @ 11:48PM
|
|
Interesting observation Alvin. That could be why the health management organizations bribe as many of our representatives as possible. 
|
|
bardnsage
|
Oct 23 @ 1:13AM
|
|
Hmmmm,,,, is denial of a claim,,, the prevention of the pursuit of life. Well,,, no it is not. The contract with a health maintenance organization is not a contract for health, or a contract for life, or a contract for medical treatment. It is a contract for the transfer of the costs of covered medical procedures to the health maintenance organization.
Without the contracts (the policy) in hand,,, you really can't assign blame or fault in the scenario. It's an emotional, knee jerk, reaction.... although, one that is understandable. These cases are often mis-reported by the news.
Just because a person died,,, and just because the claim for treatment was denied,,, does not mean the insurance company was at fault, or that they denied medical treatment. What was the illness? What was the standard of care? Was the procedure normal, or experimental? We don't have that information.
It's a blood and guts world out there,,,, and it flys in the face of what most of think is right and wrong. However,,, I'm not seeing where any government plan that is proposed,,, is going to gaurentee you medical treatment either. It's just a fancy insurance policy,,, and I'll bet one that is not even as rich as the one that the people had with the HMO when they were turned down. (Speculation of course,,, without the policy,,, but going by most HMO plans,,, and the plans I've seen from the government,,, it's a safe bet.)
The government plans get an artificial boost from ,,, "THE GRASS IS GREENER" syndrome.
Your blog is good,,, and if there are friends on MD, who have not read their policy,,, (not the literture provided when you sign up,,, the actual policy),,, then you are doing yourself a dis-service.
Get it,,, (it won't be easy),,, read it,,, and understand it.
The article I didn't see in the paper, or story I didn't hear on the news,,, was the number of cancer treatments done, the number of bypasses done, the number of babies delivered, the number of broken bones set, the number of C-scans done, the number of x-rays done, the number of life saving ER treatments,,,, all paid for by private insurance,,, and all done succesfully.
Now,,, how many dead kids you got because the family would not mortage the house or set up payments with the hospital, or take a part time job, or cancel their cable and cell phone,,,, to provide the life saving medical care their child needed,,,, when the insurance policy they had would not pay a claim. Yeah,, it's just speculation,,, but just as real as assuming the HMO is at fault,,, without reading the policy first.
It's just not how the media spins it these days.
|
|
phantom53
|
Oct 23 @ 2:24AM
|
|
The Constitutional guarantee of "Life" is not binding on anyone. It says YOU have the right to "Life". It doesn't say anything about anyone else being obligated to help you, assist you , or provide it for you. It doesn't give any particular span of time that this "Life" is guaranteed for.
So, if you have "life", then it is yours to keep as long as you can; under your own power, will, and finances.
In this case, the insurance company did not deny this person life. It merely denies its obligation to pay for services that it did not agree to pay for.
|
|
Panzer105
|
Oct 23 @ 10:03AM
|
|
People routinely waive their constitutional rights, and usually unknowingly...
The first time you sign a W-4 you grant the IRS the right to all kinds of unconstitutional tax collection methods.
Constitutional rights are also routinely waived in court, when you sign a traffic citation, or receive a building permit... (the inspector can then enter your property without notification or warrant)... many other examples exist under contract law.
(shhh).. 
|
|
john49887
|
Oct 23 @ 10:34AM
|
|
If parents refuse to seek medical care for an ill child and the child dies, they are prosecuted.
When an insurance company refuses coverage and a person dies, a portion of the savings is given to the CEO as a bonus.
No one at the insurance company is prosecuted even though the refusal of coverage resulted in death.
Go figure. 
|
|
amvet
|
Oct 23 @ 11:05AM
|
|
Insurance Sucks; If they take your money when you are well with a smile they should have to pay back when you are sick or when you have and auto accident.
That seems fair to me. No cancellations and no rejections if a board of doctors agree that the procedure is necessary. No ifs no buts, unless you were in the process of committing a crime when an injury occurs just smile and pay as they do as they take your money. They shouldn't be able to increase your premium to recover their loss. You don't get money back if you keep a policy, either Auto or Health, for 50 years or longer. Insurance is a one way trip. Like a Roach Motel, Money goes in and doesn't come out. The only thing wrong is our whole system of business and government is the same way. I think the whole dang thing is un constituational.
|
|
bardnsage
|
Oct 25 @ 1:41AM
|
|
I guess I'm just one of those weird people...
if a procedure is going to save my child,,, I don't really care if I have insurance or not,,, do it.
Someone who does not work out a payment arrangment with a hospital,,, and opts to not treat their child,,, because insurance will not pay,,,, well,,,,
you will weep,,, after you sow.
|
|
Josuha
|
Oct 25 @ 1:48AM
|
|
You have the right to 'pursue' happiness..
Not to right to have it delivered to you.
Happiness to me is a bottle of Schnapps.
And at the moment, I'm very, very happy. 
|
|
|