Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
This is nonsense, and not why coverage is denied in most cases. If this were true, why does UH reject claims at twice the industry average?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/...-denial-rates/
The inherently wrong part is you take people's money and tell them you will cover stuff, and then, well, delay, deny and depose. Please tell me again how there is nothing wrong with promising a service for payment, then not doing it?
There is nothing wrong with hating the player that is profiting off of the game. And if that person inflicts enough pain and suffering on you while taking your money, well, Americans have access to guns and tend to care less about laws than most. So maybe they should consider that before ruining lives. Don't hate the player, hate the game, as you say. You don't get to pick and choose where the game starts and ends like that, nobody does. |
If you don't have coverage, you don't have coverage. And if you don't have coverage you're not entitled to a payout.
If insurance companies pay people out in cases where they don't have coverage, profits will fall. To make up the profits, they will need to increase premiums. As premiums increase, more people will either pass on insurance or look to reduce premiums by reducing coverage. If insurance companies are then asked to make up for that drop off by further granting payouts to people who don't have coverage, they would need to increase premiums further, which in turn results in less people insured and more people reducing coverage. It's a vicious cycle.
The above dynamics have been really well studied by many economists - most who are left leaning - and it can lead to the failure of insurance markets. That's why the government rarely - if ever - strong arms insurers into paying claims where people don't have coverage.
Again, this is not a good system for many people. There are better systems for many people and if the political will was there, things would change. But the problem is the system, not the actors.