Death Panels - Aetna to pay $25.5M for denying coverage

If you read the actual article, medicare covers the proton therapy Aenta denied in this case.

2 Likes

I have zero doubts—zero!—that you have solid data that controls for all the variables when performing such a comparative analysis.

4 Likes

Not technically illiegal, so it’s fine!

What ■■■■■■■ fantasy world do you live in? First, you’d only be able to switch if it was during an open enrollment period. Second, it’d have to be a plan you could afford. Third, the only reason you’d be able to switch and not get your ass denied is because the ACA outlaws insurance companies from denying you based on your pre-existing condition. Then, you’d have to pray that the next insurance company wouldn’t deny your claim as well.

1 Like

We love it. That’s science.

^^^

Yup.

10 Char

I wasn’t saying I would switch if they denied me, I was saying I would switch or not become a customer if they had a track record of a high denial of claims. And no, I don’t have to wait for open enrollment unless I was going through the exchange.

Not unless you have a qualifying event.

I curious about this statement. So you view health care as a right, then?

Talk of “rights“ is meaningless. It’s morally deficient and fiscally irresponsible to have the system we have. It’s the most expensive system and can’t even achieve universal coverage.

Even in ‘universal health care’, not everyone can have every single expensive piece of treatment they can dream of. There will always have to be some denials or constraints.

Sorry, but it’s not meaningless. So, if the current system isn’t what you desire, what does the system you prefer look like?

Well, I think rights are ■■■■■■■■ philosophically speaking. But, basically, yeah. Everyone should get healthcare. Full stop.

1 Like

Well, reality does impose some restraints. Denial of treatment is not something that reality imposes on us.

So, if a person has a right to health care, who then has the responsibility to provide it? Essentially, the provider is now in servitude to the recipient by virtue of the recipient’s existence. That certainly has to be considered when discussing the morality of the issue, no?

Not a problem. Cuban doctors aren’t “in servitude” and neither will ours. People don’t just become doctors so Anthem or some other ■■■■■■■■ insurance company will give them money.

Some people, crazy as it sounds, actually become doctors to help people instead of doing it for the check.

Yes, it is a problem, and yes it works just as I stated. Health care as a right absolutely puts others in servitude to bestow that right. It can’t work any other way and it can’t be dismissed.

It’s fine if you’re okay with that, but it certainly becomes a part of the discussion when morality becomes involved.

Are you under the impression that doctors would be employees of the government? That’s now how single payor works.

It’s already happened in other places. The doctors aren’t slaves.

I don’t think that poor people dying because they don’t have coverage is ever going to be the moral position.

Whether doctors are the employees, or money is taken from others to pay those doctors, somebody still has a responsibility to bestow that right, no?