Impeding changes to our Health Care system - Page 145

classicman · 09-15-2010, 01:19 PM

Gee for one who claims to take the higher ground - BWAHAHAHAA

Your opinion? Your opinion is meaningless.

TheMercenary · 09-15-2010, 09:28 PM

FTR. He likes to change shit he posts and then come back as all holier than thou....

But I get your point, and I shall refrain from further documentation....

Point taken.

Spexxvet · 09-22-2010, 08:47 AM

A provider is coming between my patient and the product that is best for them and that they want.

VSP, one of the largest eyewear insurance providers has decided it will not pay for frames made by Aspex Eyewear Group. Why? Because a frame company that is a subsidiary of VSP infringed on an Aspex patent and Aspex is suing VSP.

Isn't our current system just wonderful?

classicman · 09-22-2010, 09:49 AM

It would seem the supplier is between you and your patient.
If they weren't suing your patient wouldn't have a problem.

Spexxvet · 09-22-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

It would seem the supplier is between you and your patient.
If they weren't suing your patient wouldn't have a problem.

Wrong.
Patient wants to buy product.
Supplier wants to sell product.
Provider won't allow the transaction.

classicman · 09-22-2010, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Patient wants to buy product.
Supplier wants to sell product.
Provider won't allow the transaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Why? Because a frame company that is a subsidiary of VSP infringed on an Aspex patent and Aspex is suing VSP.

Undertoad · 09-22-2010, 11:52 AM

vsp was a very cool Dwellar back in the day, I wish he would return.

C-man, your objections here don't really parse for me. You are saying that supplier Aspex is at fault for suing?

classicman · 09-22-2010, 12:31 PM

I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law?

Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves.
Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense.

Undertoad · 09-22-2010, 12:39 PM

A judge can order a restraining order preventing VSP from selling frames the made that are based on the Ampex patent. That's not what we have here. There's no law preventing VSP from doing business with Ampex or vice-versa.

classicman · 09-22-2010, 12:43 PM

How do you know that?

classicman · 09-22-2010, 12:56 PM

Sorry to toss this in at this point in the discussion, but I think its warranted.

Quote:

Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.

Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.

WASHPO

What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so. If you are gonna regulate, do it right at least. Another reason why single payer was the only way to go.

Spexxvet · 09-22-2010, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law?

Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves.
Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense.

The company with the patent, Aspex, is the plaintiff. The defendant, vsp, is punishing Aspex for suing them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

What really gets me about this isn't so much that they are doing it, but that in this gazillion page document, there wasn't a provision forcing them to do so.

What gets me is that a company has to be forced to do the right thing.

Undertoad · 09-22-2010, 12:59 PM

Because these kinds of lawsuits happen all the time and insurance companies still do business with everybody. A lawsuit can be initiated by anybody and has no bearing on any other aspect of business.

classicman · 09-22-2010, 01:02 PM

Ok so if thats true, why do you think its different in this case?

Undertoad · 09-22-2010, 01:06 PM

It's no different. VSP is permitted to cover Aspex product. They have chosen not to.

09-15-2010, 01:19 PM	#1
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Gee for one who claims to take the higher ground - BWAHAHAHAA Your opinion? Your opinion is meaningless. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

09-15-2010, 09:28 PM	#2
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	FTR. He likes to change shit he posts and then come back as all holier than thou.... But I get your point, and I shall refrain from further documentation.... Point taken. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

09-22-2010, 08:47 AM	#3
Spexxvet Makes some feel uncomfortable Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 10,346	A provider is coming between my patient and the product that is best for them and that they want. VSP, one of the largest eyewear insurance providers has decided it will not pay for frames made by Aspex Eyewear Group. Why? Because a frame company that is a subsidiary of VSP infringed on an Aspex patent and Aspex is suing VSP. Isn't our current system just wonderful? __________________ "I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce

09-22-2010, 09:49 AM	#4
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	It would seem the supplier is between you and your patient. If they weren't suing your patient wouldn't have a problem. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

09-22-2010, 12:31 PM	#8
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	I'm saying that it is not uncommon in a lawsuit for the party being sued to not be able to "sell" a specific product till the suit is over. Otherwise they could tie the suit up in court while making a profit they are/were not entitled to. Therefore they are not allowed to sell the product and all companies, insurance or otherwise, are probably not allowed to do business with them until the case is settled. Isn't this like standard corporate law? Until that time the product is essentially unavailable. I think it is probably more due to the wording of the suit in this case anyway. The company that has the patent is protecting themselves. Blaming the Ins co. in this case makes no sense. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

09-22-2010, 11:52 AM	#7
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	vsp was a very cool Dwellar back in the day, I wish he would return. C-man, your objections here don't really parse for me. You are saying that supplier Aspex is at fault for suing?

09-22-2010, 12:39 PM	#9
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	A judge can order a restraining order preventing VSP from selling frames the made that are based on the Ampex patent. That's not what we have here. There's no law preventing VSP from doing business with Ampex or vice-versa.

09-22-2010, 12:43 PM	#10
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	How do you know that? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

09-22-2010, 12:59 PM	#13
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Because these kinds of lawsuits happen all the time and insurance companies still do business with everybody. A lawsuit can be initiated by anybody and has no bearing on any other aspect of business.

09-22-2010, 01:02 PM	#14
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Ok so if thats true, why do you think its different in this case? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

09-22-2010, 01:06 PM	#15
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's no different. VSP is permitted to cover Aspex product. They have chosen not to.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)