Should Coverage Provisions Be Construed Broadly And Exclusion Clauses Narrowly?

For healthcare to be fair and permeable for every person, America’s leaders will have to identify the current issues dividing the population. This means removing prejudices and developing a plan that can be seen as universal. It should help to increase the types and availability of health insurance and give those not coverage the means to secure coverage. Passing a new healthcare bill that will establish a plan that is “option driven” will place the overall decision and type of coverage in the hands of the public. This will remove the stigmata off of leaders, doctors, and health maintenance organizations. But, the two major factors that will

The subject of insurance and how heavily the government can mandate it or not mandate it is a constant struggle in politics. There is always the question of “what kind of relationship should the government have with its people and what role should it play with businesses?” Currently, a popular subject is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and it is challenging the boundaries by requiring people to have health insurance and requiring businesses to offer health insurance to everyone and anyone. Mandating insurance is a hot button subject in other areas too that we will discuss like auto insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, and professional malpractice insurance.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act establishes new requirements for health plans and insurers changed in order to expand access to affordable coverage, and prevent individuals from losing certain coverage. New coverage insurance market regulations will prevent health insurers from denying coverage to people for any reason, in which their health status, and charging people more based on their health status and gender. These new rules will also require that all new health plans provide extensive coverage that include at least a minimal set of services, caps annual out‐of‐pocket spending that does not impose cost‐sharing for preventive services, as well as no impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage. For example, new insurance market regulations within private insurances allow young adults are able to stay in their parents health insurance up to the age 26. Once an employee has reached age 26 they have to upgrade from their parents insurance plan to defendant coverage plan eliminating annual and lifetime limits on coverage such as rescissions and waiting periods within 90 days. Health insurers will be prohibiting from placing an age limit to their coverage in case of fraud. Large employer that offer coverage plans will have to automatically places employs in to a low cost premium plan if the employ sign up or exit out of coverage. Overall health plan premiums will be able to vary based on an age, geographic area tobacco

Connors, E.E. and Gostin, L.O., “Health Care Reform-A Historic Moment in US Social Policy.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 303, 2521-2522.

Health care reform and access to insurance have been staples of the American political agenda ever since the end of World War II. From President Truman’s call for universal coverage in the late 1940’s to the creation of Medicaid and Medicare to the Affordable Care Act, both parties have debated how to lower the rate of uninsured Americans. After nearly 70 years of debate in Washington and beyond, the number of Americans with health insurance has certainly grown (Miller, 2014). However, the number of people in the United States without coverage is still unacceptably high and a problem that should be addressed with a great deal of urgency and care.

“In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care” (Supreme Court Opinion, 1). In America, it is a basic necessity to possess health care, logically, Congress would like to make such a necessity more accessible to Americans. Due to a divided government, there are variant views on whether this is necessary and just. Health care benefits all Americans; it is just a matter of if the policy of a required national health care is beneficial.

It is argued that reforms would not be a fix to insurer discrimination. Health policy institutes predict that patients would still be discriminated against - Especially those that have complicated health issues and as a result, multiple bills. This would theoretically make it more difficult such patients to contend with uncooperative insurance companies. Additionally, health plans could circumvent costs by not including enough doctors in their network that address ailments which require costly treatments. In a competitive market, it is unlikely that insurance companies will “play fair” (Hilzenrath, 2009).

separate proposals to expand health insurance to all, or nearly all, Americans."I shall propose a sweeping

The evaluation criteria to determine the effectiveness of this policy must include a variety of facets. First, there is the obvious quantitative evaluation method in determining how many Americans are uninsured or under-insured after the plan is fully implemented. It is estimated that the policy will provide coverage to more than 94% of Americans (“The Patient Protection”, n.d.). Although serving these Americans is a primary goal of the Act, whether or not all of the people will be served is yet to be seen and will need to be monitored. In addition, the quality and efficacy of healthcare is another primary concern of this policy.

McNiece succeeded at first instance in the SC of NSW.  On appeal to the Court of Appeal the court found there was no privity of contract and McNiece had not provided consideration to Trident.  Nevertheless they found for McNiece on the ground that under insurance policies beneficiaries can sue on the policy despite no privity or consideration.  Trident appealed to the High Court.

Sometimes the system changes and its challenges have to be view and revisited from time to time. For example, while the population is being told that they have to be insured, by what means will they be insured? Everyone who is on a fixed income chooses daily weather to eat, fill a prescription or to buy food. (The Commonwealth Fund, 2012). Are we asking the vulnerable population to be insured and at what cost? If it is left up to each state to pick and choose where the cut off for services begins and ends, where will our health care cost be in 5

Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.

Given a fire has destroyed Tony’s property on the 12th July, whether Tony can successfully claim on the Whitlam’s insurance policy put in place on the 7th July, requires a consideration of the insurance policies which may cover the premises at the time of the fire.

Appropriate wording of the exclusion clause is essential to assert whether it can cover what has occurred under the contract. Goliath plc 's clause impliedly seeks to exclude liability for any potential negligence and so the Canada Steamship

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.