Health Insurance Companies and Depraved Indifference

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Feb 27, 2011.

  1. Depraved indifference legal definition:

    To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

    I don't know if there is case law or precedent, but I began thinking about this issue after listening to Mike Huckabee on CSPAN, where he was discussing his views on abortion, and made a bridge to end of life patients. His argument was essentially that human life begins at conception, and human life ends only when we have done everything possible to maintain a human life.

    So....

    Do insurance companies that intentionally and willfully deny or delay coverage on end of life patients, knowing that they will the waiting game in many cases, commit murder through depraved indifference?

    Are they guilty of depraved indifference?

    I think a good lawyer could make a good argument before a court. The problem of course is that cost of the suit would be great...so it would take deep pockets.

    I know People like Sarah Palin talk about death panels, but are noticeable quiet when it comes to the reality of insurance companies committing depraved indifference murder...
     
  2. UK Nationalized Healthcare

    Their requests have been rejected by regional health authorities who were accused of operating covert “blacklists” to restrict dozens of treatments to save money.

    An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered more than 80 cases in which desperately sick NHS patients have been refused the cancer drugs their doctor sought, in the four months since a £200 million fund was introduced to stop health authorities rationing treatments.

    The fund was a key move by the Coalition so that those suffering from cancer would never again be refused drugs on grounds of cost.

    Ministers were responding to years of anger over a system which meant patients were unable to secure life-extending drugs because central NHS rationers had decided the treatments were not “cost effective”.

    Announcing the fund last summer, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, promised to end “the scandal” of cancer patients being refused the drugs that their doctors sought, because of restrictions by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
     
  3. Do insurance companies that intentionally and willfully deny or delay coverage on end of life patients, knowing that they will the waiting game in many cases, commit murder through depraved indifference?

    ------------------------


    The insurance company isn't preventing anyone from getting treatment.

    People could seek out donations, charity or Dr or hosiptal could perform the service for free.
     
  4. Insurance don't prevent anyone from getting treatment?

    So treatment is not a decision for the insurance company? They don't make a decision whether or not to pay for treatment?

    "The insurance company isn't preventing anyone from getting treatment."

    Interesting spin. If someone wants treatment, and can't afford it, they always get treatment?

    What are the odds that any particular person could seek out donations in time?

    As far as the hospitals, then you get back to the depraved indifference issue...and a joint suit against both the insurance who could have paid the cost, but refused to, and then the hospital who refuses to pay the cost, but refused to.

    Why do we as a society rationalize allowing non coverage because of cost? Think that maybe it is because we value something more than human life?

    I just find it interesting that if the government makes decisions based on cost, that is bad, and insurance companies or hospitals doing the same thing is good...because the government is not for profit...and the insurance companies and hospitals are for profit.

    It is going to be an interesting debate as boomers get closer to end of life, and the costs of health care keep rising. Something has to give, don't you think?