Woman denied coverage for breast cancer treatment because she had acne - Really?
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16679)
Boston, Massachusetts
September 10, 2009 2:17pm CST
Among the half-truths and sad tales in Obama's speech last night was nestled this little story of a woman who says the insurance company done her wrong.
"...More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.... [A] woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."
It might be heartbreaking but the only thing wrong is that this isn't the whole story. The reason this woman's insurance was canceled retroactively was not because she didn't disclose her acne - she neglected to disclose her heart condition.
See the details here:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/of-course-obama-omitted-critical.html
Now, we all know that an insurance company requires that you give them true information about your health conditions and you sign a paper that says you swear all of the information is true when you take out the insurance. It is always disclosed that failing to be truthful will result in the cancellation of your policy.
And yes, the link is a blog but the story was originally covered on NPR, so it's true.
3 people like this
10 responses
@rg0205 (2636)
• Hong Kong
10 Sep 09
Oh for pete's sake!
Such petty things, really. So, what's next? Not being eligible for insurance because you have hair growing out of your nose?
Corporations and their cash hoarding schemes. Just absolutely disgusting. I feel so sorry for the woman..
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Sep 09
A heart condition is a petty thing? Signing something you know is a lie is a petty thing? I feel sorry for people who think their lies make them virtuous if the lie benefits them.
If she had told the truth, she probably would have had no trouble getting the insurance and it wouldn't have been cancelled on her.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Sep 09
You're both missing the point. She wasn't denied health insurance because she had a heart condition. She violated the contract by not disclosing it. That's standard.
You are assuming that she wouldn't have gotten the insurance had she disclosed it, but you don't have that fact in evidence, it's your assumption and you may be very wrong. I have had health insurance policies where I disclosed my pre-existing condition, and it's a serious one. I was not denied.
But, the real point is that the story as told, was not exactly true. If the president wants us to believe him about his health care plan, he should start with being truthful. Telling us stories that have important bits edited out just so they sound like they support his position is just wrong. Wouldn't you agree that the president shouldn't lie to us?
@katran (585)
• United States
10 Sep 09
So, your argument is that because she did not tell the insurance company she had a heart condition, they have the right to deny her coverage?
Better question, if she had originally told about the heart condition, would the insurance company have had the right to deny her coverage from the get-go? Because really, regardless of whether it was acne or a heart condition, if someone needs medical insurance they need medical insurance! And since this company was taking her money from her all those years.....? Seriously, what the heck? What if the government took your money for years and years and then told you that they were not going to give you care because you had a racing heartbeat however many years ago? Would you be understanding? Absolutely not. Don't be a hypocrite. Hold the market to the same standard that you hold your government.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Sep 09
The point is that the story Obama told the joint houses of Congress and the nation was not true. Surely, that is evident.
Secondly, if you are told that if you lie your policy will be cancelled, then yes, you will have your policy cancelled if you lie. They didn't hide that fact.
The fact that the heart condition would not have made her ineligible is that the health insurance company in question reinstated her policy. Obama didn't tell you that, either.
So everyone can find excuses and think up hard luck stories but the truth is that she lied on the application, the policy was initially cancelled and then reinstated.
That's not what Obama told you.
I am not a hypocrite because when I applied for health insurance, I did not hide my pre-existing condition. She is a hypocrite for not disclosing when she knew it was required and then feeling it was not fair for her to suffer the consequences.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
10 Sep 09
You are missing the point. Obama said the women was dropped from her insurance company for acne. When it fact it was a "heart condition". Those are two very different things. No there should not be any pre existing condition clause and hopefully our government will get rid of it. But the point is Obama did not tell the truth in his speech.
He claims about the other side telling half truths or distorting the truth or even lying for their own gain. He is too. Both sides are slanting every story they can to make their side look better and the other worse. So he is just as guilty as the people he was talking about in his speech last night.
I just wish both sides would just give us the facts nothing but the facts of this new health care bill and then us figure out for ourselves if we want it. We are not stupid. We are capbable of thinking for ourselves and deciding if we want something.
Both sides need to stop the show boating.
@katran (585)
• United States
10 Sep 09
That's not what I perceive the point to be. The point is that you are finding fault with the fact that Obama did not get his story straight when really EITHER version of the story upsets me. Whether the woman had one pimple or multiple sclerosis, the fact that the company decided not to pay for her treatment when she had been giving them money for WHO KNOWS HOW LONG is terrible. And that's the point that Obama was making as well. Yes, she omitted something. Was it an outright lie? Maybe or maybe not. Maybe it was just something she forgot about or did not think was important, as someone above me said.
The point is, Obama does not think insurance companies should be able to deny anyone based on ANYTHING. THAT is the point. Maybe the acne thing made it seem more ridiculous, but as I said, it shouldn't matter whether it is acne or something much more serious. If you need care, and you've been paying the insurance company for who knows how long, they OWE you something.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
10 Sep 09
GREAT DISCUSSION! One more an example of how Obama tells half truth and the half he tells is only to support his his own agenda. What an evil man! I was so happy to post a discussion on how well the GOP Rep responded to Obama's TV appearance.
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/2127878.aspx
I am sorry to go off topic but last night I was truly shocked at Michelle Obama's eyes they were ice cold not a flicker of humanity in them, she smiled often but her eyes were completely devoid of any expression or warmth. Did you by any chance notice this?
1 person likes this
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
11 Sep 09
I am so used to Obama lying that I do not believe a word he says. He will say anything to get support for his grandiose schemes.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Sep 09
Thanks, but it seems a lot of people here seem to be missing my point, which is Obama lied. They're all trying to make up excuses for the woman.
I did see Michelle, it was good to see her smile - she doesn't do that often. I didn't really notice her gaze. I imagine she was aware that it's make or break time for her husband on his most identifiable issue.
I don't think he pulled it off. The details were sketchy and he didn't back up his claims with solid numbers. He got applause from his side, but we expected that.
@piya84 (2581)
• India
12 Sep 09
This is so disgusting.How they can behave like that?Acne is not big deal.They are naturally there on some bodies more in number than other one.Its not a big illness to deny insurance cover.Cancer is very much dangerous thing.I feel every women should have such insurance for her.
1 person likes this
@opalina143 (1240)
• Morristown, New Jersey
10 Sep 09
OK, Rollo, I caught you in a half truth of your own. The woman did not have a "heart condition." I have the original story from NPR.
She did not disclose that she had once been treated for a rapid heart beat. That is quite different from a heart condition. She did NOT have a diagnosed heart condition or defect- she has merely been treated at one point in her life, possibly in an emergency room, for having a heart that was racing. NPR did not indicate that there was any kind of structural defect in the heart.
A racing heart can be caused by panic attacks, over-exertion, or many other non-life threatening conditions.
The woman also claimed not to have lied, but rather to have felt that the minor conditions of acne and the brief treatment of a fast heartbeat (not a heart condition) were irrelevant- because they were so minor.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105680875&ft=1&f=1001
also
1 person likes this
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
10 Sep 09
Having worked for Medicare for many years as a fraud investigation I can assure you the lack of acne disclosure would not cause a policy to be cancelled but a rapid heart beat is definitely an important cardiac defect item to omit and would most certainly give the insurance company every right to cancel her policy!
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Sep 09
I read the original story from NPR too and nowhere in there does it say she was treated once for it, nor does it imply it was a minor or passing thing or emergency rooms or any of the details you purport to be part of the story. The point is that the questionnaires one fills out for insurance applications do not advise you to leave out anything you might not consider important. I didn't tell a half-truth. She didn't disclose it. A rapid heartbeat is a heart condition, my father was treated for a rapid heartbeat and it's treated by a cardiologist, not your GP.
By the way, Obama also didn't tell us last night that her policy had been reinstated and she got her treatment.
What's the point?
The point is Obama lied. That's okay with you, apparently. It's not okay with me.
@LiveLove (443)
• United States
11 Sep 09
I am just about floored right now. I can't believe he could serious say something like that and expect people to just go along with that statement without him elaborating a bit more. My nose is itching and that's because I am allergic to bs. That's like saying eating McDonald make people fat without taking into account what else is in their diet and their lifestyles. I don't appreciate information being manipulated to "prove" or support a point. The President needs to look into incidents directly instead of taking the word of people who are "guiding" him into representing something rather than just being something. I hope that his speeches carry better content rather than focusing on delivery, not to say that he doesn't bring up poignant points.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
11 Sep 09
It is a poignant story, or would be if it were true. The reason for telling it this way is obviously to cause a ripple of shock and outrage in the audience. Who wouldn't think it shocking that an insurance company would let you die of cancer because you had acne? Unfortunately for him, you are right. People will examine every word he says to make sure it's true and in this case, it wasn't.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
11 Sep 09
Did the woman tell that the reason her insurance was canceled was because of her failing to declare her acne? Well I suppose she did not disclose her heart condition because she was afraid she would not be qualified for insurance. Is there not any insurance companies that cover castrophic or critical illnesses and is it not their policy to only cover them if the person discloses it at once? If the woman only discovered she had a bad heart condition, then she would still be covered, but had she gone into the hospital and she was unconscious, and they did not know about it, they might have invariably killed her by giving too strong a dosage. So by not declaring her condition and just saying it is the acne, she could have risked her own life.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
11 Sep 09
In fact, the woman's policy stated that non-disclosure would result in cancellation. She didn't feel the two conditions were relevant to her present condition. The two parts Obama didn't mention were the heart condition she failed to disclose and the fact that the insurance company reinstated her policy. So, she would still have been covered if she had disclosed, the failure to disclose was the only reason it was cancelled. She had the policy reinstated and got her treatment. This is not a story of the horrors of health insurance, unless you do what the president did and leave out the details and pick only part of the story to tell.
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
10 Sep 09
Rollo,
I just don't get it! People almost drowning in their own slobber fawning after this guy when he is nothing more than a half truth sayer and most times a down right liar who will say anything or do anything to get his agenda passed!
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
10 Sep 09
I have to wonder why Obama would tell that story. Doesn't he know someone would know the whole truth and would tell it? Why do politicians feel they have to lie? The only reason I can think for it is because they know what they're trying to sell is snake oil.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
11 Sep 09
You may be absolutely right. I have no way of knowing and was only responding to Rollo's discussion. Since a double mastectomy was mentioned, one would have to think it was the woman's case he was talking about and not the boy's. It could be that Obama didn't know about either case and his speech writers screwed up. It doesn't change anything. Politicians lie and they have longer than I've been around.
@opalina143 (1240)
• Morristown, New Jersey
11 Sep 09
Maybe, Bestboy, he got it confused with this http://www.seiu.org/2009/08/womans-son-denied-coverage-because-of-acne.php
@lynnemg (4529)
• United States
11 Sep 09
Okay, as I understand it, she was actually denied because she neglected to report a heart condition. Did she even know that she had one or was it a result of her cancer? Either way, I think that it is wrong that she was denied at all. If a person pays for insurance, they expect it to be there when it is needed. I could care less what a person's health conditions are before or after opening a policy, if they are paying for it, they should be covered.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
11 Sep 09
She wasn't denied. That would be if they said they wouldn't cover something. This is not about what caused her condition. It's a little matter of contract law. If you make misstatements or knowingly withhold information while signing a statement that says you swear you are being truthful, then you are in violation of the contract of insurance. When a party is fraudulent, it allows the other party to disaffirm.
Once more, she had her policy reinstated and she got the treatment.
BUT, that is NOT the point of this discussion. The point is that Obama told only part of the story and what he told people was not true. The point is that the president lied to make people want his health care reform. He lied to influence people's opinions.
