Despite what the Republicans say, it isn’t for a lot of people, especially if you have insurance companies targeting people who want to, you know, actually use their insurance for anything but a money sink. Not saying a single-payer, government run system would be without problems, but if you’re like the guy in the article, it’s hard to imagine it being worse.

Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell’s case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.

The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration’s health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away with controversial and unpopular industry practices.

Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of “rescission,” whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they’ve been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.
[...]
Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: “The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer.” In upholding Nettles’ verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that “Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell’s costly medical condition.”

On a vaguely related topic, ever wonder how many doctors and nurses are beaten up by patients?

“You’re enjoying the view, you’re enjoying the cleaning,” said Nina Torres.

That’s the concept that motivated Torres to start Edan’s Maids R’ Us, a team of sexy housekeepers that service South Florida. “They actually clean, I can guarantee you that,” said Torres.

Click pic to see the full story

CARD Act Could Negatively Impact Creditworthy Consumers’ Credit Scores hurt your credit score

What’s Worse: Stingy Banks or Thrifty Consumers?

Forget legislation, etc. It’s in the interests of a company’s owners (the shareholders) to keep management from paying exorbitant bonuses that ultimately reduces their profits and makes them and the company look like greedy scumbags in this economy.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) was sued on Monday by a large union pension fund that accused the Wall Street investment bank of overpaying its executives.

The International Brotherhood of Electric Workers fund filed the lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking to recover money for the company on behalf of other shareholders.

It seeks to stop Goldman from allocating roughly 47 percent of 2009 net revenue as compensation, saying such allocations “vastly overcompensate management and constitute corporate waste.”
[...]
Goldman has been at the center of a public debate over how much banks should pay out in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, after taking billions of dollars of federal bailout money.

Last week, Goldman said it would cap 2009 compensation expense at $16.2 billion, for a 36 percent compensation ratio, despite posting a record profit.

The bank also said its board rejected several shareholder demands to investigate recent pay awards and recoup excessive pay, while admitting it could face “negative publicity” from media portrayals.

Arctic methane and cow farts be damned! Yes, it’s obvious that the science is in: American’s cars are at the heart of climate change. Therefore, it’s only right that we cripple our recovering economy to save the planet! [For members of the 'literal Internet', that was sarcasm.]

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase, according to a report released Thursday by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The research also appears in the March edition of the journal Energy Policy.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.

Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.

In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.

On the other hand, if the taxes were used to pay down the deficit… Riiight.