I would have gotten the surgery regardless of the insurer\’s actions at the moment.
I\’m not sure how things work in Washington, but in my state, you can have surgery even if you can\’t pay for it all in advance.
My husband was diagnosed with cancer several years ago during a several-months long period when we happened to have no health coverage. (Figures, huh?)
The hospital and surgeons knew we didn\’t have coverage, but they performed the surgery and subsequent treatments then billed us. And billed us and billed us and billed us. And we pay and we pay and we pay. People will be living on Mars before we have the debt paid off, but so what? My husband is alive and cancer-free.
Why didn\’t she just do the same thing? If faced with paralysis, I would tell the insurer to shove off. Have the surgery NOW, fight with the carrier later.
Has anyone considered the fact that even if these people had health insurance, the first insurance liable would have been the auto insurance anyway, since the injury happened in the car. We pay for personal injury protection policies for this very reason, being injured in the car.
Maybe this women followed all the proper procedure, maybe she was not eligable for any other outside help. Maybe people should not assume they know, because until you have been in her shoes or anyone else\’s that you are mocking and or talking about, you really have not one single clue! Most Attorney\’s take this type of case on a contingency fee basis, which means if the client receives no money then the attorney gets none either, so with that in mind, don\’t you think this attorney has all the facts and proof she needs??? why risk all that work for nothing on either part??
Just because we apparently disagree about something (although I\’m not sure what or why) doesn\’t mean I\’m unintelligent.
If a doc advises I need surgery or risk paralysis, the first thing I would do is get a second opinion, perhaps a third. Then I\’d research as much as possible via other means; library, internet, other medical professionals, etc.
I would certainly approach the insurer, if I thought it should be covered. If the insurer drags their feet, fine. Forget \’em. I\’m going to do what is in MY best interest regardless.
If my choices are:
1- Not having the surgery until the insurer agrees to pay, although I might risk further harm to myself.
2- Have the surgery anyway and go into debt for the next several years.
3- Have the surgery anyway and then take the insurer to court if it\’s covered and they deny my claim.
Then to me, options 2 or 3 are the best. Maybe that isn\’t true of everyone. But option 1 just doesn\’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
I would imagine that this person was:
1) covered to start with or the insurance company would not have been paying for any of the treatment to begin with. Since the article states that once the insurance company heard that surgery was recommended they suspended further payment pending a doctor of their own examine the patient (their insured). The article also states that two surgeons recommended this surgery, so therefore there was already more than one opinion.
2. Not automatically assume that just because the insurance company is large and in charge means that they are justified in everything they do.
I believe that the facts of this are not all on the table. We pay for personal injury protection on our auto policies for protection when we are hurt in the car. We pay a great deal of good hard earned money in good faith with the hope that we will never need to utilize it, but when things go wrong and we need it, we paid in good faith, they should handle the claims in good faith.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I would have gotten the surgery regardless of the insurer\’s actions at the moment.
I\’m not sure how things work in Washington, but in my state, you can have surgery even if you can\’t pay for it all in advance.
My husband was diagnosed with cancer several years ago during a several-months long period when we happened to have no health coverage. (Figures, huh?)
The hospital and surgeons knew we didn\’t have coverage, but they performed the surgery and subsequent treatments then billed us. And billed us and billed us and billed us. And we pay and we pay and we pay. People will be living on Mars before we have the debt paid off, but so what? My husband is alive and cancer-free.
Why didn\’t she just do the same thing? If faced with paralysis, I would tell the insurer to shove off. Have the surgery NOW, fight with the carrier later.
Call her and ask her.
Has anyone considered the fact that even if these people had health insurance, the first insurance liable would have been the auto insurance anyway, since the injury happened in the car. We pay for personal injury protection policies for this very reason, being injured in the car.
So what would you have done, Melanie?
Would you have waited for the carrier to approve your surgery?
Or would you opt to have the procedure done ASAP and argue over coverage later?
I find out all the facts, how about you??
Maybe this women followed all the proper procedure, maybe she was not eligable for any other outside help. Maybe people should not assume they know, because until you have been in her shoes or anyone else\’s that you are mocking and or talking about, you really have not one single clue! Most Attorney\’s take this type of case on a contingency fee basis, which means if the client receives no money then the attorney gets none either, so with that in mind, don\’t you think this attorney has all the facts and proof she needs??? why risk all that work for nothing on either part??
Look State Farm up on consumeraffairs.com and it will make you wonder why so many are ready to jump to this companies defense???
Sure I would find out all the facts.
Just because we apparently disagree about something (although I\’m not sure what or why) doesn\’t mean I\’m unintelligent.
If a doc advises I need surgery or risk paralysis, the first thing I would do is get a second opinion, perhaps a third. Then I\’d research as much as possible via other means; library, internet, other medical professionals, etc.
I would certainly approach the insurer, if I thought it should be covered. If the insurer drags their feet, fine. Forget \’em. I\’m going to do what is in MY best interest regardless.
If my choices are:
1- Not having the surgery until the insurer agrees to pay, although I might risk further harm to myself.
2- Have the surgery anyway and go into debt for the next several years.
3- Have the surgery anyway and then take the insurer to court if it\’s covered and they deny my claim.
Then to me, options 2 or 3 are the best. Maybe that isn\’t true of everyone. But option 1 just doesn\’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
I would imagine that this person was:
1) covered to start with or the insurance company would not have been paying for any of the treatment to begin with. Since the article states that once the insurance company heard that surgery was recommended they suspended further payment pending a doctor of their own examine the patient (their insured). The article also states that two surgeons recommended this surgery, so therefore there was already more than one opinion.
2. Not automatically assume that just because the insurance company is large and in charge means that they are justified in everything they do.
I believe that the facts of this are not all on the table. We pay for personal injury protection on our auto policies for protection when we are hurt in the car. We pay a great deal of good hard earned money in good faith with the hope that we will never need to utilize it, but when things go wrong and we need it, we paid in good faith, they should handle the claims in good faith.
Yes Great!!! some one who is smart, thank you. We all need to care!!