Just one more reason why the Democrats need to pass health care reform

Insurance company cuts patient that has HIV.

(Reuters) - In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.

Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.

So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy African-American teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.

But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.

Thankfully, Mitchell won his case, but the courts discovered it wasn't just Mitchell who had been dropped before for his medical condition.

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.

Capitalism at its best, folks! [/snark]
The current healthcare bill in Congress is far from perfect. There's no public option to keep the insurance companies honest and provide competition, among other complaints. But it is a first step on the road to obtaining universal coverage. We've been debating about this for decades and this is the closest we've ever been. To me, it doesn't make sense to go against a bill that will cover 30 million more people who really need it.