←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
throwawaysleep ◴[] No.43665314[source]
So they vote for the shenanigans? As that’s what they did.

The American people basically legalized fraud and looting for the next four years.

replies(5): >>43665338 #>>43665688 #>>43665931 #>>43666144 #>>43666551 #
1. phendrenad2 ◴[] No.43666551[source]
Is there something in the water here on HN that prevents people from differentiating between intent and outcome..?
replies(2): >>43667029 #>>43667308 #
2. throwawaysleep ◴[] No.43667029[source]
The party put in power did not even claim to oppose those things. The man put in power did the opposite when he was last in power.

As an analogy, I understand why someone might not trust the Boeing 737 Max. I would consider them in need of a court appointed guardian if they determined the alternative was to jump off a building as a safer way to fly.

3. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43667308[source]
“I didn’t mean to kill anyone” only counts if it wasn’t obvious you were going to kill someone.

The outcome here was obviously what was going to happen. They promised these actions.