AIG, Not Exactly The good hands people

  • News
  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
  • #1
67
165

Main Question or Discussion Point

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington — Civilian workers who suffered devastating injuries while supporting the U.S. war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan have come home to a grinding battle for basic medical care, artificial limbs, psychological counseling and other services.

The insurance companies responsible for their treatment under taxpayer-funded policies have routinely denied the most serious medical claims. Those insurers -- primarily American International Group (AIG) -- recorded hundreds of millions of dollars in profits on this business.
http://www.propublica.org/feature/injured-war-zone-contractors-fight-to-get-care-from-aig-416

I did not realize that the no bid contracts KBR received also came with taxpayer funded insurance policies on their workers. The primary insurance company is apparently AIG.

This was also on ABC's 20/20

This is totally disgusting in light of the bail out money AIG received.

Edit: here is a link to the 20/20 program.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7356654&page=1
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
12
The insurance companies responsible for their treatment under taxpayer-funded policies have routinely denied the most serious medical claims.
The company has a duty to it's shareholders not to it's customers. The optimum strategy is to do evil to the point that the fines outweigh the savings.

This is totally disgusting in light of the bail out money AIG received.
So the government is now the shareholder - anybody who objects to AIG stiffing vets is obviously anti-american.
 
  • #3
149
0
The bailout money AIG received was to cover derivatives exposure...their insurance division is generally considered viable.

Private contractors in war zones are typically well compensated for their risk. I find it disturbing that tax payer money is used to fund their insurance in the first place.

A short term war zone specific policy is a highly specialized insurance product. It's doubtful the policies could be priced adequately to provide high limit comprehensive (and long term) coverages.

My best guess is the term "taxpayer funded" will be applicable for a long time for these men and women. It seems to me the private firms should have some liability in the care of their personnel as well.

As for the government staffers that apparently negotiated the policies with the carriers...I hope they won't be involved in the future universal care negotiations.
 
  • #4
67
165
AIG has been accused of overcharging on the premiums they recieved for worker coverage in Iraq.

I find it more than coincidence that an insurance company who had the influence to get what was essestially a no bid contract to provide insurace in Iraq, also had the influence to get the government to jump in immediately with bail out money.

This comes as no surprise to many, but AIG may have been lining its pockets at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. AIG is currently under investigation for overcharging KBR Inc., the Army’s largest contractor in Iraq, possibly by tens of millions. The money paying for these overpriced premiums comes from tax payers as part of the $23+ Billion contract KBR has with the Department of Defense. AIG actually gets to charge the American tax payer twice, because your tax dollars not only pay the premiems, but also reimburse AIG for what it pays out on the 15,000+ Defense Base Act claims filed with AIG since 2003.
http://defensebaseactblog.com/2008/02/29/aig-may-have-overcharged-kbr-and-other-contractors-for-defense-base-act-coverage/

Why did they deny claims when they were being reimbusred by the government for payouts on those claims? Did they deny the workers, yet collect the money from the government anyway??

KBR didn't complain about the overcharges, the army did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aJhLICr7Z7to&refer=us [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
149
0
AIG has been accused of overcharging on the premiums they recieved for worker coverage in Iraq.

I find it more than coincidence that an insurance company who had the influence to get what was essestially a no bid contract to provide insurace in Iraq, also had the influence to get the government to jump in immediately with bail out money.



http://defensebaseactblog.com/2008/02/29/aig-may-have-overcharged-kbr-and-other-contractors-for-defense-base-act-coverage/

Why did they deny claims when they were being reimbusred by the government for payouts on those claims? Did they deny the workers, yet collect the money from the government anyway??

KBR didn't complain about the overcharges, the army did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aJhLICr7Z7to&refer=us [Broken]
It's possible the claims aren't covered by the policies...whether morally right or wrong. If AIG over-paid claims they might be accused of wasting tax payer money as well...it's potentially a no win situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Al68
Any insurance company that tries to rip off its own employees (by trying to avoid paying them after the fact what they previously agreed to, ie retention bonuses) cannot ever be trusted.

They should be bankrupted by a concerted effort to spread the word that they can't be trusted to provide insurance, and lose all their customers, not be bailed out with dirty money stolen from Americans.
 
  • #7
149
0
Any insurance company that tries to rip off its own employees (by trying to avoid paying them after the fact what they previously agreed to, ie retention bonuses) cannot ever be trusted.

They should be bankrupted by a concerted effort to spread the word that they can't be trusted to provide insurance, and lose all their customers, not be bailed out with dirty money stolen from Americans.
Didn't the Obama administration and Congress decide paying the bonuses was a bad idea...I seem to remember the CEO being grilled on TV by Barney Frank and associates?
 
  • #8
Didn't the Obama administration and Congress decide paying the bonuses was a bad idea...I seem to remember the CEO being grilled on TV by Barney Frank and associates?
Yes Barney Frank is a real stand up guy who represents the people real well. Anytime he sees mis-management or wrongdoing he is always there to stop it. Oh, wait...
 
  • #9
Al68
Didn't the Obama administration and Congress decide paying the bonuses was a bad idea...I seem to remember the CEO being grilled on TV by Barney Frank and associates?
Yeah, we have a President and congressmen that encouraged AIG to not honor the contracts that legally required them to pay the bonuses. Dishonest elected officials, big surprise!
 

Related Threads for: AIG, Not Exactly The good hands people

  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
13K
Replies
10
Views
19K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
89
Views
8K
Top