"We GuArD aGaInSt uNnEcCeSaRy TrEaTmEnTs"
No, fuck you.
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
262 points (100.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9906 readers
709 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Suggestion: set the stuff health insurance should cover regardless of the package in law. And set the price for the cheapest available health insurance package that should be offered in law.
Ultrasound screenings identify cancers that can be missed in mammograms, radiologists say. And they are imperative for women with dense breast tissue, a condition affecting nearly half of women over the age of 40, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Uh, being a certain age has fuck-all to do with breast density. It doesn’t suddenly change when you turn 40. And yeah, not only do mammograms become impossible to read after a certain density, but they’re painful as fuck, and ultrasounds don’t have this issue. So what the fuck? Why deny covering the cost of screenings? It doesn’t make any sense at all.
I read it as they are describing a group of people that are over 40, which I assume is when these exams typically start for most women. Not that something suddenly happens at 40.
Deny coverage, delay and argue. Even if you eventually do have to pay for coverage some of the patients will die before then, saving money statistically.
The oncologists described the serious adverse event as “delay of treatment” 96% of the time, “denial of treatment” 87% of the time, “disease progression” 80% of the time, and “loss of life” 36% of the time.
Just a financial perverse incentive. Once someone demonstrates a expensive chronic condition you save money by exiting them from coverage as fast as possible. Either through rejections, denials, or waiting out their deaths... Not to mention sick people are usually not in a good position to fight a Kafkaesque nightmare of bureaucracy
a Kafkaesque nightmare of bureaucracy
A key piece within the extraction machine. Corporate bureaucracy expects you to act in good faith, while they are acting in bad faith.
I got scans denied after I hit my head and got a concussion, they didn't even give a reason but the doctor said I might have a brain bleed.
Fuck these companies.
The night before the first procedure, Pike’s surgeon called to let the family know Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Pike’s health insurer through his employer, had declined to cover the roughly $40,000 treatment.
I imagine the internal conversation plays out a little like this:
"generally speaking, there's very slim chances of surviving cancer, so we should deny it."
Ok but there's many forms and locations for it, this particular case is treatable and has a high success rate.
"Are there really? Oh well, we only have a slip here says Diagnosis- Cancer and survival chances of 'cancer' listed as 10%. It doesn't seem worth the money to gamble on a 10% chance for anything!"
You realize this is a human...right? Like we're talking about prolonging the life of another human for a few years, hopefully another 20+ by giving them care?
"Oh I've never met them, shame about them passing but don't't we all eventually? 10% is 10% and that's what we go by. Anyway so....denied"
Saint Luigi hear my prayer...
D³