←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | 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 #
y33t ◴[] No.43665175[source]
People are getting screwed every which way so any change seems like an opportunity for improvement. Even Ukraine was excited to see Biden leave office so they could at least have a chance for a better arrangement with America.
replies(1): >>43665852 #
LeafItAlone ◴[] No.43665852[source]
>Even Ukraine was excited to see Biden leave office so they could at least have a chance for a better arrangement with America.

That doesn’t align with what I saw. Can you provide evidence? Because it was pretty clear to me that it would go exactly as it has, which is pretty terribly for Ukraine.

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Trump%E2%80%93Zelenskyy...

- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna200977

replies(1): >>43666455 #
y33t ◴[] No.43666455[source]
It was in an Economist article sometime around December; unfortunately I canceled my subscription because of their screen-hijacking ads, so I'm not able to find it. Problem was, Ukraine was being chipped away slowly by Russia and Biden wasn't giving them more aid. The thought was that Trump may shake things up a bit so they at least had a chance to improve their situation. Obviously that hope was misplaced, but Biden was too afraid of provoking of Russia to do anything but slow them down. Ukraine knew they were suffering a slow death, so basically any change was reason for hope.
replies(1): >>43667037 #
1. LeafItAlone ◴[] No.43667037[source]
If you do find that singular article, I’d be interested in reading it. I do have access to The Economist, so I’d just need a link.