Ted Cruz Says It’s Okay For Insurance Companies To Deny Legitimate Claims
Posted on October 19, 2013By Joe SandsHealthcare, Politics
Asked about the recent accusations against Humana by the Attorney General Lori Swanson in Minnesota, Texas Senator Ted Cruz said:
“Remember, the bottom line for a corporation is profits. If the claim is legitimate and they are going to lose money on it, they should be able to, in good conscience, deny the claim, in the interest of profit.”
The senator then waxed on about how the Attorney General of Minnesota was a Democrat and that Democrats were anti-business.
“Businesses create profits and profits create jobs. We all know Democrats hate business and profits, and by extension, jobs. It’s simple guys, Lori Swanson is a liberal. As we all know, liberals think people deserve everything for free, and expect insurance companies to pay up.”
Humana is being accused of denying legitimate health claims, over-charging members for copays, among other infractions. Essentially, Humana is being accused of shirking their contractual duties and yet Cruz is lionizing them as the poster boy for how the insurance business should be run to increase profit margins.
The infractions in question all have to do with Medicare and thus, Cruz would be happy to know that the Minnesota Attorney General has no jurisdiction with respect to bringing charges against Humana. The state is barred from prosecuting claims against insurance companies when those claims have to do with the federal Medicare program. The most they can do is to request that the federal government investigate the case.
When informed about this fact, Ted Cruz smiled and stated:
“The House holds the purse strings. As much as we are going to withhold funding from Obamacare, we can just as easily withhold monies from Medicare investigations. Medicare is an entitlement program that needs to be eliminated. No amount of investigations will absolve this administration from the fact that running the lives of retired Americans is unconstitutional and flies in the face of freedom.”
Ted Cruz paid no heed to the numerous stories that were quickly told to him about the individual retirees who were hit with unexpected bills when Humana said they would be paying them. He stuck to his rhetoric about unfettered freedom to make profits on the backs of hard-working Americans, even though they paid their premiums from their own pockets and signed contracts that obligated Humana to legally cover their medical bills.
Considering his education and background rather then evil I'd just call it plain stupid - that assumes of course that this is being accurately reported. A contract is a contract. You pay, the other side performs. Nothing is more fundamental to our democratic, capitalist system. Since it is so obvious, is why I question the context.
I fail to see how allowing a company to refuse to honor a contract is pro business. What if it is a refusal to honor a contract between businesses? I guess for these guys it is OK for a business to violate a contract with an individual but not with another business. Or maybe it is just OK to violate a contract with a poor individual or maybe one of moderate means but certainly not with a rich individual. Where to draw the line? What if an insurance company violates a contract with a Pharma company then who's side are you on? How about a big oil company denying a legitimate contract with a pipeline company? Slippery slope there Teddy.
Big oil companies, and other big companies have the money to hire dream teams of lawyers to fight other big companies in contract disputes.
Little people cannot afford to hire lawyers to fight against big companies in contract disputes. It is a one sided competition between the big companies of the super rich people versus the common individual people without having the government to protect the common people from being bullied and pillaged by the super rich, and their big companies with their huge and powerful dream teams of lawyers, and lobbyists.
The market playing field is completely uneven and tilted to benefit the super rich and their big companies with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists, unless a liberal government steps in to even the playing field. You should not fail to see how only a liberal government is strong enough to level the market playing field against the heavy weight of the super rich and their big companies.