Blue Shield Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment

[fallout man]

dp

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wow, that high tech treatment that she won't be getting is the best in the world. Great stuff. Not for her, but in general.

So would it be any better if UHC didn't get her the best in the world either?

Oh snap, of course they would. UHC will take care of everything, and if it doesn't then the lie will have been worth it.

Well, if it doesn't she'd be no worse off than she is now.

And so UHC isn't any better for her, but we can extend to everyone the right to be denied. That's the beauty of it. While some might be covered before, everyone gets that privilege.

Sorry, but until someone comes up with more than obfuscation I'm not supporting it. I'm not taking the word of people content to lie or misrepresent UHC, and I'm referring to Congress and Obama.

Everyone already has the right to be denied, so UHC would not extend it to anyone. You can have your blinders on, noone is stopping you.

so then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
hey wait, you know the fun thing about a "free market", there are things called COMPETITORS, as in YOU HAVE A CHOICE...

from the article

Other insurance companies do cover the procedure. Just a week after Andrews-Buta's treatment was denied by Blue Shield, a patient with similar cancers had her gamma knife treatment approved by a different insurance company.

nope, no slant at all in your bullshit.

Yeah, that helps her a lot. If only she knew to ask if gamma-knife treatment was covered before she got cancer and found out what gamma-knife treatment was. Or maybe if her employer did before signing her up for this plan.

Yeah, but if UHC doesn't cover it, then she's no worse off.

But if it did cover her, she'd be better off. So we have some chance she'd be no worse off, and some chance she'd be better off, so on average she'd be better off.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: bctbct
While I sympathize with this woman it sounds like the final outcome is going to be the same either way.

IMO there is a point where throwing money at something becomes a burden on people who pay insurance rates.

You've got to get with the program. If the government were to do this it would be prudent conservation of scarce resources. If an insurance company does it, then it's evil for profit avarice.

It's not what's done but who does it that matters most, or so it seems.

I do believe that insurance companies are evil, just not in this particular case

I kind of fault the doctor for giving the patient false hope.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
hey wait, you know the fun thing about a "free market", there are things called COMPETITORS, as in YOU HAVE A CHOICE...

from the article

Other insurance companies do cover the procedure. Just a week after Andrews-Buta's treatment was denied by Blue Shield, a patient with similar cancers had her gamma knife treatment approved by a different insurance company.

nope, no slant at all in your bullshit.

Yeah, that helps her a lot. If only she knew to ask if gamma-knife treatment was covered before she got cancer and found out what gamma-knife treatment was. Or maybe if her employer did before signing her up for this plan.

Yeah, but if UHC doesn't cover it, then she's no worse off.

But if it did cover her, she'd be better off. So we have some chance she'd be no worse off, and some chance she'd be better off, so on average she'd be better off.

can i take logic 101 from you? holy fucking irrationality batman.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wow, that high tech treatment that she won't be getting is the best in the world. Great stuff. Not for her, but in general.

So would it be any better if UHC didn't get her the best in the world either?

Oh snap, of course they would. UHC will take care of everything, and if it doesn't then the lie will have been worth it.

Well, if it doesn't she'd be no worse off than she is now.

And so UHC isn't any better for her, but we can extend to everyone the right to be denied. That's the beauty of it. While some might be covered before, everyone gets that privilege.

Sorry, but until someone comes up with more than obfuscation I'm not supporting it. I'm not taking the word of people content to lie or misrepresent UHC, and I'm referring to Congress and Obama.

Everyone already has the right to be denied, so UHC would not extend it to anyone. You can have your blinders on, noone is stopping you.

so then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
hey wait, you know the fun thing about a "free market", there are things called COMPETITORS, as in YOU HAVE A CHOICE...

from the article

Other insurance companies do cover the procedure. Just a week after Andrews-Buta's treatment was denied by Blue Shield, a patient with similar cancers had her gamma knife treatment approved by a different insurance company.

nope, no slant at all in your bullshit.

Yeah, that helps her a lot. If only she knew to ask if gamma-knife treatment was covered before she got cancer and found out what gamma-knife treatment was. Or maybe if her employer did before signing her up for this plan.

Yeah, but if UHC doesn't cover it, then she's no worse off.

But if it did cover her, she'd be better off. So we have some chance she'd be no worse off, and some chance she'd be better off, so on average she'd be better off.

can i take logic 101 from you? holy fucking irrationality batman.

You'd have to learn what expected value is first. Probably start with math 101.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Impossible!

Outrageous!

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
hey wait, you know the fun thing about a "free market", there are things called COMPETITORS, as in YOU HAVE A CHOICE...

from the article

Other insurance companies do cover the procedure. Just a week after Andrews-Buta's treatment was denied by Blue Shield, a patient with similar cancers had her gamma knife treatment approved by a different insurance company.

nope, no slant at all in your bullshit.

Cancer patients have choice in our current health care system? This is news to me. Last I checked, my employer provided a single option.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wow, that high tech treatment that she won't be getting is the best in the world. Great stuff. Not for her, but in general.

So would it be any better if UHC didn't get her the best in the world either?

Oh snap, of course they would. UHC will take care of everything, and if it doesn't then the lie will have been worth it.

Well, if it doesn't she'd be no worse off than she is now.

And so UHC isn't any better for her, but we can extend to everyone the right to be denied. That's the beauty of it. While some might be covered before, everyone gets that privilege.

Sorry, but until someone comes up with more than obfuscation I'm not supporting it. I'm not taking the word of people content to lie or misrepresent UHC, and I'm referring to Congress and Obama.

Everyone already has the right to be denied, so UHC would not extend it to anyone. You can have your blinders on, noone is stopping you.

so then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

as the company stated, there are other viable treatments they will cover, which according to them are just as viable, but cost less... there is an inherent risk to everything, and all that had to be asked at signup is "does this insurance cover any and all cancer treatments"

thats it, not that hard of a question...

one bastard one major asshat

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
hey wait, you know the fun thing about a "free market", there are things called COMPETITORS, as in YOU HAVE A CHOICE...

from the article

Other insurance companies do cover the procedure. Just a week after Andrews-Buta's treatment was denied by Blue Shield, a patient with similar cancers had her gamma knife treatment approved by a different insurance company.

nope, no slant at all in your bullshit.

Yeah, that helps her a lot. If only she knew to ask if gamma-knife treatment was covered before she got cancer and found out what gamma-knife treatment was. Or maybe if her employer did before signing her up for this plan.

Yeah, but if UHC doesn't cover it, then she's no worse off.

But if it did cover her, she'd be better off. So we have some chance she'd be no worse off, and some chance she'd be better off, so on average she'd be better off.

But if she had picked a company which would have covered this and UHC didn't then on average she would be better off.

Have you figured out how this works yet? This company didn't cover it, and that's unfortunate, however since we don't know that UHC would (and you want rationing of health care), you are saying that on average she would be better off, because we don't know anything about what we're going to get, and that's a reason to have it.

Now we understand that you and others want UHC at any and all costs, however many of us aren't buying into it until we know just what that means. If the government won't tell us, then we won't support it. No information, no UHC.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
hey wait, you know the fun thing about a "free market", there are things called COMPETITORS, as in YOU HAVE A CHOICE...

from the article

Other insurance companies do cover the procedure. Just a week after Andrews-Buta's treatment was denied by Blue Shield, a patient with similar cancers had her gamma knife treatment approved by a different insurance company.

nope, no slant at all in your bullshit.

Yeah, that helps her a lot. If only she knew to ask if gamma-knife treatment was covered before she got cancer and found out what gamma-knife treatment was. Or maybe if her employer did before signing her up for this plan.

Yeah, but if UHC doesn't cover it, then she's no worse off.

But if it did cover her, she'd be better off. So we have some chance she'd be no worse off, and some chance she'd be better off, so on average she'd be better off.

can i take logic 101 from you? holy fucking irrationality batman.

You'd have to learn what expected value is first. Probably start with math 101.

slinging mud for arguments only makes one wonder if the accused party has an answer

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: senseamp


No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

In general I would agree, but should a doctor give a patient expensive health care if there is a slim chance of a good outcome? I think in this case the insurance company doctors find the procedure a complete waste of effort....and money.

Its like aftermarket parts, sure I want OEM on my car, but I dont really want to pay for them on your car.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wow, that high tech treatment that she won't be getting is the best in the world. Great stuff. Not for her, but in general.

So would it be any better if UHC didn't get her the best in the world either?

Oh snap, of course they would. UHC will take care of everything, and if it doesn't then the lie will have been worth it.

Well, if it doesn't she'd be no worse off than she is now.

And so UHC isn't any better for her, but we can extend to everyone the right to be denied. That's the beauty of it. While some might be covered before, everyone gets that privilege.

Sorry, but until someone comes up with more than obfuscation I'm not supporting it. I'm not taking the word of people content to lie or misrepresent UHC, and I'm referring to Congress and Obama.

Everyone already has the right to be denied, so UHC would not extend it to anyone. You can have your blinders on, noone is stopping you.

so then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

as the company stated, there are other viable treatments they will cover, which according to them are just as viable, but cost less... there is an inherent risk to everything, and all that had to be asked at signup is "does this insurance cover any and all cancer treatments"

thats it, not that hard of a question...

one bastard one major asshat

The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
slinging mud for arguments only makes one wonder if the accused party has an answer

LOL, you watching Law and Order or something? The accused party here is the free market healthcare system, and it has no answers.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: senseamp


No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

In general I would agree, but should a doctor give a patient expensive health care if there is a slim chance of a good outcome? I think in this case the insurance company doctors find the procedure a complete waste of effort....and money.

Its like aftermarket parts, sure I want OEM on my car, but I dont really want to pay for them on your car.

Don't want to pay for other people's healthcare? Simple solution, don't be in health insurance business.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: senseamp


No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

In general I would agree, but should a doctor give a patient expensive health care if there is a slim chance of a good outcome? I think in this case the insurance company doctors find the procedure a complete watse of effort....and money.

Its like aftermarket parts, sure I want OEM on my car, but I dont really want to pay for them on your car.

The problem is that if a government doctor decided what care she needs instead of her treating doctor, then it would be spun as a positive, because there can't be problems with government run health care. Unpossible!

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

as the company stated, there are other viable treatments they will cover, which according to them are just as viable, but cost less...

You are a fucking idiot.

Doctor: "Looks like you've got gangrene in your toes..."

MIKEMIKE: "ORLY?"

Doctor: "Yeah. We could pluck those babies off, but unfortunately your insurance company would rather have us take your leg off at the hip--they're all pissed off about paying for the extra time we'd need to seal the wounds."

MIKEMIKE: "OK OK. Whatever saves them money. I should have thought of that before I signed up for that insurance!"

*BOOM TSK*

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: senseamp


No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

In general I would agree, but should a doctor give a patient expensive health care if there is a slim chance of a good outcome? I think in this case the insurance company doctors find the procedure a complete waste of effort....and money.

Its like aftermarket parts, sure I want OEM on my car, but I dont really want to pay for them on your car.

Don't want to pay for other people's healthcare? Simple solution, don't be in health insurance business.

That business model is to collect more than they pay out. They raise rates to maintain profit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wow, that high tech treatment that she won't be getting is the best in the world. Great stuff. Not for her, but in general.

So would it be any better if UHC didn't get her the best in the world either?

Oh snap, of course they would. UHC will take care of everything, and if it doesn't then the lie will have been worth it.

Well, if it doesn't she'd be no worse off than she is now.

And so UHC isn't any better for her, but we can extend to everyone the right to be denied. That's the beauty of it. While some might be covered before, everyone gets that privilege.

Sorry, but until someone comes up with more than obfuscation I'm not supporting it. I'm not taking the word of people content to lie or misrepresent UHC, and I'm referring to Congress and Obama.

Everyone already has the right to be denied, so UHC would not extend it to anyone. You can have your blinders on, noone is stopping you.

so then WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

as the company stated, there are other viable treatments they will cover, which according to them are just as viable, but cost less... there is an inherent risk to everything, and all that had to be asked at signup is "does this insurance cover any and all cancer treatments"

thats it, not that hard of a question...

one bastard one major asshat

The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

Uh huh. So you wouldn't support a UHC which tells doctors what they can and cannot do? They would just be providing a financial product.
So the government won't

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: senseamp


No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

In general I would agree, but should a doctor give a patient expensive health care if there is a slim chance of a good outcome? I think in this case the insurance company doctors find the procedure a complete waste of effort....and money.

Its like aftermarket parts, sure I want OEM on my car, but I dont really want to pay for them on your car.

Don't want to pay for other people's healthcare? Simple solution, don't be in health insurance business.

That business model is to collect more than they pay out. They raise rates to maintain profit.

Argument 1 against for profit health insurance.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: senseamp


No problem at all, insurance company doctor deciding what care she needs instead of her treating doctor is a great outcome of the free market healthcare, and how could there be a problem with free markets? Impossible!

In general I would agree, but should a doctor give a patient expensive health care if there is a slim chance of a good outcome? I think in this case the insurance company doctors find the procedure a complete waste of effort....and money.

Its like aftermarket parts, sure I want OEM on my car, but I dont really want to pay for them on your car.

Don't want to pay for other people's healthcare? Simple solution, don't be in health insurance business.

That business model is to collect more than they pay out. They raise rates to maintain profit.

Argument 1 against for profit health insurance.

you can use that arguement against ANY company...
should automobiles be NFP because they are necessary for a whole shitload of people?
should automotive insurance be NFP because it is necessary for all drivers?
should grocery stores, and farms, and the like be NFP because food is necessary for ALL?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: fallout man

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

as the company stated, there are other viable treatments they will cover, which according to them are just as viable, but cost less...

You are a fucking idiot.

Doctor: "Looks like you've got gangrene in your toes..."

MIKEMIKE: "ORLY?"

Doctor: "Yeah. We could pluck those babies off, but unfortunately your insurance company would rather have us take your leg off at the hip--they're all pissed off about paying for the extra time we'd need to seal the wounds."

MIKEMIKE: "OK OK. Whatever saves them money. I should have thought of that before I signed up for that insurance!"

*BOOM TSK*

But in this case

Doctor: You have 15 lesions on your brain

Patient: ORLY?

Doctor: If you pay me 1 million dollars I can save you

Insurance Doctor: We could pay them 10 million and your still going to die, soon.

Me: Please dont raise my rates so high that my relatively healthy family has to drop our insurance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

crappy time warps.

So Sensamp, you would be against any UHC plan which would limit what the physicians could order for treatment, since your argument against private health care is that they tell the physicians what they can and can't do.

Right?

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

should grocery stores, and farms, and the like be NFP because food is necessary for ALL?

Should grocery stores, farms, and food processing centers stop paying for sanitation and quality control, because it would drastically increase their profit margin?