Not familiar with Mass, if you were in a historically higher risk market they might use it as an excuse to quiet quit you for lack of a better term I just don’t know about Ma tbh.
Having a standing policy of denying claims as aggressive as possible even wrongfully might have come back around on him
I'm not saying it's ok to gun people down in the street. But if people are gonna get gunned down in the street it may as well be health insurance executives IMO This would make a good thread actually
Honestly. Im there as well. Corporate greed is unconscionable. And the political class isnt far behind.
And on the same day this guy gets his comeuppance, BCBS in Missouri, Connecticut, and New York will start denying full coverage on anesthesia for all procedures
When it comes out the shooter lost a family member due to some sort of denial of coverage, I think we will see the shooter walk.
I’ve been reading comments on this event here, Reddit, and Bluesky. I don’t know if it’s necessarily surprising, but just interesting, that there hasn’t been a single “what about his family” or “murder is bad” white knights. Just unanimous LOL and “sorry, coverage denied” everywhere. Haven’t seen this for a death since Osama
Bootlicker Blue Cross Blue Shield in Connecticut, New York and Missouri has declared it will no longer pay for anesthesia for the full length of some surgeries. It the procedure goes over a certain time, anesthesia will not be covered for the duration.
You're such a dumbass sometimes. is it for all procedures or for the "overage" time of some procedures? outrage is fine just be factual
im too lazy to look but I imagine this is similar to hospitals getting umbrella payments for procedures where they don't get extra pay if people stay in the hospital longer, etc they've calculated the procedure time and they don't want to incentivize anesthesiologists to make procedures take longer
A lot of the world pays in blocks based on the injury / procedure whereas we itemize everything, it’s a factor in how expensive our healthcare is
I’m guessing I’m missing a thread but I’m shocked this isn’t getting more traction here. Fascinating case.
Life insurance question: is coverage influenced by income/net worth/liquid net worth, or is it purely limited by the premiums a person can afford? If the latter, is there anything in a policy/contract/statute/etc that I could reference for that?
When I sold it for a few years, they would pretty much give you whatever you could pay for up to $500k coverage. You could get up to $1M with underwriters just asking a couple more questions, but over $1M required an actual financial audit for the company I worked at. Different companies’ UW departments would have their own guidelines for that. I was never made aware of any legal statutes regarding the value of the policy, just the period of contestability. I believe it’s on the company to make sure what they’re selling makes sense
I've mentioned this ITT a few times before. Insurance companies have been siphoning their profits to their affiliates for years to get around the 4.5% profit rule then cry poor to the state in order to raise rates. https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/po...Hq9jmKmti-VhxynKDA_aem_ZSOLY119fTKhgXhjhyQLFA
no one is going to take on Florida level risk uncertainty at a cap of 4.5% so the fact that domestics found quasi legal ways around that is very unsurprising
not at all, but the profits they have been shifting are massive while they still cry poor, raise rates, then blame insurer fraud and litigation.