Insurance Company Issues Death Sentence to Customer
tags:
Stumble ThisWith his health insurance coverage cancelled, Ian Pearl loses the care that keeps him alive.
The official statement from the company that cancelled his coverage, "Guardian acted legally, appropriately and in full compliance of state law.""
Adding insult to it all, he was referred to in an internal company memo as a 'dog'.
Yay! Profit based insurance!
The official statement from the company that cancelled his coverage, "Guardian acted legally, appropriately and in full compliance of state law.""
Adding insult to it all, he was referred to in an internal company memo as a 'dog'.
Yay! Profit based insurance!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
EVERY THING NEEDS TO BE NUKED AND REFORMATTED
Format C!
$unmount fuckedupsdb1 dev
then take the hard drive and put it in a sealed glass box so you know how evil you were. Every time you sit at your new computer you can see that sealed box containing the failures of the system.
If that fails? Use the following command
./ZombieFailSafe --ForceWipe
The inherent evils of a system leads me to believe that systems are inherently evil.
Let's hear the whole story! I mean, the fact that we get health insurance to safeguard against the cost of care in the case of catastrophic health problems does not justify ANYONE having their health care costs covered by an insurance company in the case of catastrophic health problems! It's a good thing there are state laws that protect insurers from having to pay when patients become this ill.
Yes, this can't be the whole story. He must be using that money to live a decadent life. Sleazy MS disabled con artist living the good life with his electric wheel chairs and people paid to wipe his ass every time he takes a shit. I mean, his health care costs alone probably total at least 1/10 of the bonus paid to the CEO of Guardian last year!
Let's hear the whole story! I mean, the fact that we get health insurance to safeguard against the cost of care in the case of catastrophic health problems does not justify ANYONE having their health care costs covered by an insurance company in the case of catastrophic health problems! It's a good thing there are state laws that protect insurers from having to pay when patients become this ill.
What the fuck is wrong with you? I'd really like to see you maintain this sentiment if you were that fucking sick.
>> ^TheFreak:
Yes, this can't be the whole story. He must be using that money to live a decadent life. Sleazy MS disabled con artist living the good life with his electric wheel chairs and people paid to wipe his ass every time he takes a shit. I mean, his health care costs alone probably total at least 1/10 of the bonus paid to the CEO of Guardian last year!
Let's hear the whole story! I mean, the fact that we get health insurance to safeguard against the cost of care in the case of catastrophic health problems does not justify ANYONE having their health care costs covered by an insurance company in the case of catastrophic health problems! It's a good thing there are state laws that protect insurers from having to pay when patients become this ill.
What the fuck is wrong with you? I'd really like to see you maintain this sentiment if you were that fucking sick.
sarcasm detection fail
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Profit!
In a public health system as existing in other countries he probably would be forced to move to a care facility for 24/7 nursing. The taxpayer wouldn't be asked to pay for such high intensive at home care.
He has the right to care, but he doesn't have the right to unlimited care at home with his own luxuries.
Not a good example for health care reform since: he probably would be reviewed by a panel of doctors and assessed as needing to move to a nursing facility. He currently has a blank cheque for unlimited care. The situation managed badly... but insurance is not an unlimited golden ticket.
it would seem to me that this guy could live pritty hapily in a nursing home set up a nice room decent internet access and decent access to facilities around him . not only would that save money but then that saved money could be used so that it can benefit other people.
its better he suffer not living at home than to have other people die.
of course that would be the can in a nhs typ system ,
As much as I would love to give every disabled person a million dollars worth of at-home care each year, that cost is simply untenable and not fair to other people paying into the system.
Moving him to an assisted living center where he can get the attention he needs while sharing those resources with others in a similar situation seems appropriate, and much more cost effective.
Insurance companies account for this type of thing when determining your premiums. They have entire departments dedicated to calculating actuary tables and such to ensure they profit even given the 1 in a million patient like Ian Pearl. So dropping Mr. Pearl's coverage is pure profit for the company. Guardian Insurance will meet their expected profit margins while meeting Mr. Pearl's health care needs. They'll profit even MORE by dropping him.
I hope this reply made sense. Tequila is a hell of a drug.
I think it's a valid criticism of the media to say we are left wondering about details, because the reporting is lousy in that regard. But the details don't matter. When something like this happens, doesn't it beg the question: What are we paying them for? I thought it was for care and coverage for the care. But apparently, it's not.
Now, I'm not saying pull the plug on him. What I'm asking is does our compassion conflict with nature? Would that destroy what it is to be 'human' by ignoring compassion?
This is probably not going to make me many friends, but does our compassion as a species make us unnatural?
What does that even mean? How could anything we do "conflict with nature"? Did our capacity for compassion come from some rift in space-time, bestowed upon us by trans-dimensional higher beings? Hell, even that wouldn't actually be unnatural, because everything that exists is by definition part of the natural world.
To be honest... (and i hate myself for saying this)
In a public health system as existing in other countries he probably would be forced to move to a care facility for 24/7 nursing. The taxpayer wouldn't be asked to pay for such high intensive at home care.
He has the right to care, but he doesn't have the right to unlimited care at home with his own luxuries.
Not a good example for health care reform since: he probably would be reviewed by a panel of doctors and assessed as needing to move to a nursing facility. He currently has a blank cheque for unlimited care. The situation managed badly... but insurance is not an unlimited golden ticket.
I dont know exactly how the law is written in all cases but I do know that in schools there are "integration" laws (quoted because I dont believe that's the exact term, maybe "inclusion" laws). Those laws basically state that accommodations need to, by law, be made in every possible situation.
If your child were confined at home, for example, and needed private tutoring every-single-schoolday you would the accommodations would have to be made. Those accommodations could potentially include private tutoring but only as a last resort. As it is, they will do anything and everything to bring you into the actual classroom; and staying at home would be like a last resort.
I'm not sure how the laws would work in a government health care system but I imagine it would be something similar where accommodations of disabled individuals would be outstretched to the point of inclusion but not at the cost of personal freedom.
This is probably not going to make me many friends, but does our compassion as a species make us unnatural?
Unnatural is not the word, but perhaps "unique as a species" would properly express what you mean.
And I wonder about that too. We seem to go out of the way to try to guarantee not only survival of the unfit, but reproduction as well. I am not willing to give up the human compassion that makes this possible, but I do wonder if we are harming ourselves as a species by struggling for adequate welfare and universal health care. I don't think there is an objectively right answer there. But speaking subjectively, the alternative is just too cold-hearted and downright cruel.
Also, as a forward looking individual, I see a day when all these genetic diseases will be eradicated anyway. So don't stress about it that much.
If we do overcome physical defects, then the genes that have passed down will benefit from diversity, I think. Help everyone best we can, I say.
We treat ourselves differently because we're self aware. A human mind has a whole different level of understanding of itself and the world then any animal. If you put down a lame horse, it's not begging for mercy thinking of all it has to loose, and knows that it's about to die and fears what may lie beyond it's own death.
If we do overcome physical defects, then the genes that have passed down will benefit from diversity, I think. Help everyone best we can, I say.
Humanity does not experience survival of the fittest like other species on this planet.
problem solved.
The point is still valid that he wouldn't survive in a traditional hunter-gatherer community. And it does bother me that hes sitting in the lap of luxury while the rest of work for a living, and help pay for his being. Now if he was able to partake in society in some valid way, I wouldn't care so much. I mean Hawking has been resigned to a wheelchair for a while now, and he refused to let that stop him. The report never mentioned what this man did for a living, which required him to have home-care.
What was the figure? 44,000 people a year dying due to denial or lack of coverage? 450,000 people a year going bankrupt over medical bills?
Crazy crazy...
-karl
PS. there are plenty of examples of other animals risking their own lives to save another in video documented form if you need more evidence. Look it up!
The point is still valid that he wouldn't survive in a traditional hunter-gatherer community.
But we don't live in a traditional hunter-gatherer community. Last time I checked, humanity mostly progressed from that starting 10,000 years ago.
People can be real dumb.
I'm curious about the dog comment. Does the writer really view these people as sub-human, or was it meant to be metaphorical in some way? Even if it were the latter, you'd think anyone with half a brain would be conscientious enough to not use such disrespectful and callous terminology, even internally.
My best guess for this is that "dog" in this context is an allusion to the BCG matrix, which is a way of categorizing investments. If they're talking about the fact that they're not making any money off of that particular group of plans, it would follow that that group of plans would be called "dogs," as opposed to stars, cash cows or question marks.
http://www.netmba.com/strategy/matrix/bcg/
A broader definition of "dog" in that context is any investment which isn't worth its price, which a $1 million a year plan in exchange for a few hundred bucks a month certainly is, from a bottom-line standpoint only.
As for the callous terminology, there was a Bill Moyers interview on the sift somewhere with a former insurance company executive that really highlighted how far removed these people can be from the real impact their decisions can have on people. They aren't in the habit of thinking of plans as they relate to people, only as they relate to dollars. It's not because they're monsters, exactly, but more because they're oblivious.
---
I am not willing to give up the human compassion that makes this possible, but I do wonder if we are harming ourselves as a species by struggling for adequate welfare and universal health care.
Give it 500 years or so. By then we'll have either gained the ability to control and modify our bodies enough for congenital defects and diseases to not matter, or we'll have messed up somehow and will have lost what we now know about medicine. Either way, I don't think it's likely we'll stay at this current level of medical technology long enough for it to make a huge difference genetically on the species as a whole.
ARG! You guys have a misunderstanding of what biological "fitness" really is. "Fitness" is a individuals ability to pass on its genes, differential reproductive success. Not every one makes it to pass on their genes. This man's reproductive fitness is nil, because he won't be able to reproduce. So his "fitness" doesnt need to be called to attention.
The point is still valid that he wouldn't survive in a traditional hunter-gatherer community. And it does bother me that hes sitting in the lap of luxury while the rest of work for a living, and help pay for his being. Now if he was able to partake in society in some valid way, I wouldn't care so much. I mean Hawking has been resigned to a wheelchair for a while now, and he refused to let that stop him. The report never mentioned what this man did for a living, which required him to have home-care.
You seem to have misunderstood the nature of my statement. I was referring to the fact that humans have evolved a technological means which separates themselves from the dangers day to day journey that other species have. Humans do not have to worry about the cost to risk ratio of chasing and killing prey, or running from predators. That is because we can defend ourselves, or control our predators with cages and weapons.
Than again I do not remember ever mentioning anything about the mans Fitness, only that all humans are exempt from the harshest reality of evolution in all its terrible glory.