←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.37s | source
Show context
ceejayoz ◴[] No.43664706[source]
Long read; these bits were notable to me:

> But the insurer’s defense went even further, to the very meaning of “prior authorization,” which it had granted women like Arch to pursue surgery. The authorization, they said in court, recognized that a procedure was medically necessary, but it also contained a clause that it was “not a guarantee of payment.” Blue Cross was not obliged to pay the center anything, top executives testified. “Let me be clear: The authorization never says we’re going to pay you,” said Steven Udvarhelyi, who was the CEO for the insurer from 2016 to 2024, in a deposition. “That’s why there’s a disclaimer.

> At the trial, Blue Cross revealed that it had never considered any of the appeals — nor had it ever told the center that they were pointless. “An appeal is not available to review an underpayment,” acknowledged Paula Shepherd, a Blue Cross executive vice president. The insurer simply issued an edict — the payment was correct.

> On several occasions, though, Blue Cross executives had signed special one-time deals with the center, known as single case agreements, to pay for their wives’ cancer treatment.

replies(5): >>43665139 #>>43665359 #>>43665603 #>>43665652 #>>43665927 #
HumblyTossed ◴[] No.43665139[source]
This is the frustration that leads to getting a dictator wanna-be elected President. People are SICK SICK SICK of these shenanigans and seriously want it to change.
replies(3): >>43665152 #>>43665314 #>>43665343 #
CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43665152[source]
How does electing a dictator who promises "Vote for me and I will make it worse" help, though? That's the part I don't get.

If the dictator promised to round up these CEOs and send them to El Salvador without a trial, that would be one thing... but the opposite is true, and I think the electorate understood that well enough.

replies(10): >>43665171 #>>43665175 #>>43665193 #>>43665198 #>>43665204 #>>43665282 #>>43665299 #>>43665301 #>>43665353 #>>43665385 #
candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665198[source]
30% of Americans would rather have nothing than see people who they consider undesirables have anything.
replies(2): >>43665233 #>>43665361 #
zarathustreal ◴[] No.43665233[source]
A charitable interpretation would be that they consider justice (consequences that fit the choices one makes) more important than ownership of material things

..and frankly they’re not wrong. No unjust system can maintain itself in the long term, the choice is “personal sacrifice” or “destroy everything” and it’s quite easy to make

replies(2): >>43665289 #>>43665311 #
candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665311[source]
You can choose your race? Or the social hierarchy you're born into? Or your gender? What is unjust about equality?
replies(1): >>43665701 #
1. zarathustreal ◴[] No.43665701[source]
Everything about equality is unjust, it’s literally the opposite of justice. You cannot have equality without injustice, there’s no way to fairly redistribute resources without taking from people who’ve earned what they have and giving to people who haven’t