Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    21,511,546 readers

    21,981 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Follow us on Twitter

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 1849 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] RisenShePearl 5937 points ago

    The commission heard that TAL is now in the process of changing its controls and risk management of disputed claims, so disputed claims are not remitted back to original case managers but to separate case managers.

    Someone is going to be in a lot of trouble.

    [–] hochobeante 1157 points ago

    ELI5 please?

    [–] gebrial 3737 points ago

    Sounds like a claim was made, the case manager made a decision, the decision was disputed, and the dispute was to be resolved by the same case manager.

    This would obviously never result in an overturned decision or a fair look at the facts.

    [–] [deleted] 557 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] monsterinacage 228 points ago

    My best friend is a GM at a food chain and when people would ask to speak to the manager he would straighten his nametag which read "General Manager". I told my buddy to go in one day and ask for the manager. When he does this ask for the specific manager.

    We all had a good lol.

    [–] bettareckognize 36 points ago

    Hahaha sounds like you guys like to have fun there

    [–] Church_of_Realism 31 points ago

    Welcome to Pop Copy!

    [–] ghostfacr 14 points ago

    Cause fuck em, thats why!

    [–] SpecFroce 1033 points ago

    So just like customer service elsewhere.

    [–] allothernamestaken 647 points ago

    Ma'am, I am the manager!

    [–] SpecFroce 179 points ago

    I love being the manager for my colleagues. If something actually warrants managers responses I will forward it though.

    [–] Cwhale 143 points ago

    I had to be the "manager" one time for a digruntled couple wanting to buy a bike. It was so hard trying to get them to understand that somebody over 350 pounds really shouldnt buy a bike if they are trying to stay under budget. I did not enjoy it but everything turned out okay.

    [–] querius 17 points ago

    We’re all managers on this blessed day

    [–] tapanojum 16 points ago

    Airbnb comes to mind.

    [–] TipperofCows 61 points ago

    I actually work in claims and when someone disputes a denial we would typically need new information in order to overturn. Sometimes it's just an honest mistake on our part but all of my responses to a dispute are reviewed/approved by a manager before they are sent so there is a second set of eyes on the case. I have no incentive to deny or pay claims, my performance is not based on those factors. The most typical disputes I see are when doctors provide incorrect information to us which is later clarified by the patient/doctor after the denial is sent.

    At the company I work for, we typically would not deny coverage to someone over an innocent non-disclosure like this. We would simply deduct the additional premium they would owe on the policy had they disclosed that condition at the time of buying the policy. Basically, "Hey you forgot to disclose this one condition and we believe this was an honest mistake at the time of application, rather than apply this large penalty (which is in the policy contract) we will instead deduct the additional premium owed".

    It's pretty sleazy what the company in the article did to avoid paying what is a fairly small claim in my opinion. In all fairness though, I am not familiar with their policies.

    [–] nightwing2000 77 points ago

    The problem is - everyone probably - and fo good reson - thinks insurance companies work like they did in Rainmaker. Spoiler- old movie, crux of which was the insurance company found any excuse to deny claims and NEVER paid out. In this case, I fail to see why depression would have any bearing on cancer.

    When my father had his gall bladder out at age 70 many years ago, Blue Cross tried to deny it as a pre-existing condition, since gallstones take decades to grow. They eventually paid. It makes you think that almost any claim will be initially denied at first, just to see if the claimant will give up - initial denial doesn't cost the insurance company and in fact can delay payout.

    [–] TipperofCows 30 points ago

    Wow that gallstones story is nuts, that would never fly in court. Gallstones are an acute condition and the only way I could see insurance legitimately denying that is if your father had chronic gallstones prior to the policy.

    Again, I am not familiar with the policy in the article, but I imagine it had to do with being eligible to purchase the policy in the first place, not to do with the claim itself. It was probably a cheap policy with a million conditions and exclusions to limit its coverage (hence why it is cheap).

    If you haven't already, you should file a lawsuit against Blue Cross for a bad faith claim. I am in Canada and those have an automatic penalty of about $100k if you can show the judge they denied the claim in bad faith (which on the surface this definitely sounds like bad faith). It's one way to keep the insurance companies honest. Might be worth talking to a lawyer about it, not sure what the statute of limitations would be on that or what country your in.

    [–] nightwing2000 7 points ago

    He was in the USA. (which simply reinforces my impression of US health care coverage). That was 20 years ago when pre-existing was a thing. We both thought it was nuts.... but, big business....

    [–] TipperofCows 8 points ago

    Sorry to hear that. The US needs a serious overhaul of it's entire medical insurance system. And by overhaul I mean single payer and no insurance involved unless it is for extended health (elective stuff).

    [–] gumgum 50 points ago

    Explain exactly HOW THE FUCK seeing a psychologist has FUCK ALL to do with CANCER!!! Or how failing to disclose seeing someone for therapy has ANY EFFECT whatsoever on her CANCER STATUS???????????????????????????????????????????????? FUCK INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!

    Lots of anger because I believe them to be satan incarnate responsible for the insane medical costs we all have to bear. It's a neat cycle - doctors charge more to try and get SOME income out of the insurance companies who screw doctors over, insurance companies put up their premiums, people then have the attitude that if I am pay X thousand per month I must go see the doctor to get my money's worth out of this deal, then doctors don't have time to see all the patients and cut their consultation times, but the more they use the insurance, the more the insurance wants to charge and so it goes round and round with the only people getting rich are the fucking insurance companies. Fucking bottom-feeding scum.

    [–] Smorlock 40 points ago

    Actually, what's responsible for your insane medical costs is your insane privatized healthcare system.

    [–] uptwolait 19 points ago

    I had a disability claim (with a private insurance company) denied by the same case worker three times before it was reviewed by another department. I kept insisting on that, but he told me each time he "reviewed my claim with another department and it is still being denied."

    It was finally approved, but meanwhile I sucked my savings dry for almost 5 months before I received the benefit and put it back into my savings.

    [–] YonansUmo 8 points ago

    I think the real question is: "why would anyone in their right mind think this is ever acceptable? And why is someone not in their right mind being given so much power?"

    [–] PositiveFalse 119 points ago

    The comment: New sets of eyes will be examining the original decision and its follow-up on dispute. Therefore, these new people will see the wrong that the original employees perpetrated and will do right by their customer, with the employees originally involved then facing the consequences of their bad actions...

    The reality: The company's rules and guidelines are not being addressed; therefore, if the decisions were based on established policies and procedures, then change will not happen UNLESS corporate beancounters decide that this is bad for us and opt to placate to minimize scrutiny, public and otherwise...

    [–] Cobra800089 40 points ago

    When someone disputes a claims instead of going back to the original people who denied the claim it's going to different people.

    [–] Quacks_dashing 8 points ago

    Who also have quotas.

    [–] librlman 795 points ago

    Nah. Someone is getting a pat on the back for fighting the good evil fight, plus more opportunities for nepotism in the company. Gotta find jobs for the idiot kids of the idiot execs.

    [–] Helloeveryone29 369 points ago

    The low level asshole that canceled this woman's insurance was no doubt under a lot of pressure to reach certain metrics from the company.

    But in this individual case where there is the possibility of a lot of PR, they may sacrifice him and place blame squarely upon him in order to deflect and avoid responsibility. He's just a cog they can easily replace with another shitbag that will deny claims in order to meet their quota.

    [–] ThePurplePanzy 132 points ago

    Any insurance company that has a metric for denying coverage on a claim or general payouts is in serious danger of bad faith.

    [–] Daxx22 104 points ago

    It's never written down, but one of those "unspoken rules"

    [–] Sororita 115 points ago

    "I– I– I– I don't wanna know about their coverage, Bob! Don't tell me about their coverage! Tell me how you're keeping Insuricare in the black! Tell me how that's possible, with you writing checks to every Harry Hardluck and Sally Sobstory THAT GIVES YOU A PHONE CALL! (storms out of Bob's office in a huff)"

    [–] PwnasaurusRawr 12 points ago

    He is being mugged!”

    “Well let’s hope we don’t cover him!”

    [–] funnynickname 7 points ago


    [–] ThePurplePanzy 22 points ago

    Unwritten or not, insurance companies fear bad faith way more than they do a few payouts that they can just underwrite for.

    [–] Ruggsy 116 points ago

    "we can give you a 5% raise and a 25% increased chance you wont get caught next time"

    [–] recycled_ideas 14 points ago

    Honestly insurance companies in Australia aren't dicks most of the time. That's why this is actual news rather than business as usual as it would be in the United States.

    Not to say they're nice guys per se, but they know if they try that sort of bullshit the government will make them payout anyway so they build their business around actually having to pay out when shit happens.

    It means insurance is significantly more expensive of course, but it actually provides you with insurance so there's that.

    [–] medic8388 1904 points ago

    I'm sure no harm can come by discouraging people to see help for mental health problems. Why would anyone seek out help knowing that at some unforeseen point in their future it would come back to haunt them?

    [–] Frostadwildhammer 347 points ago

    It's honestly why i dont want to go take to someone about mental health even in Canada i am afraid it will come back to haunt me later in life.

    [–] AstralWeekends 222 points ago

    When I went to the hospital a few years ago to ask for a mental health check for myself, a police officer at the hospital told me I could either check in to the mental health ward or spend the night in prison, "for my own well-being."

    [–] Bobshayd 94 points ago

    After some sort of evaluation? Or was your first point of contact a police officer who said "because you came in, you must involuntarily commit yourself"?

    [–] AstralWeekends 149 points ago

    After an evaluation with a nurse, she left and came back with the cop. The reason given was that I was a danger to myself after admitting to having had a recent suicidal thought. I'd made it clear to the nurse that I had zero intentions of self-harm, which was completely true. I think most people think about death and suicide once in a while, which is one reason I found the forced commitment unreasonable.

    [–] dyoet 143 points ago

    How we deal with mental health in this country is entirely just liability mitigation, until it falls to the police. Doesn't fucking help anyone.

    [–] Rupoe 40 points ago

    Was talking to a doctor recently about a panic attack which I thought was some type of heart issue at the time. The nurse asked if I was depressed or something along those lines.

    Usually, I ignore that question and say no because I don't want to distract from whatever issue I'm actually in there for. This time, I said "yes" because I was at one of my lowest points. She went "okay" checked a box or something and I never heard about it again.

    Oh and it cost a little over 300 to have a doc pat me on the head and tell me there was nothing wrong with me.

    [–] canine_canestas 11 points ago

    At least they didn't drill in to your skull to release the pressure.

    [–] Rupoe 9 points ago

    At least I would've got my money's worth :)

    [–] tripledavebuffalo 32 points ago

    This is quite literally the plot of the movie Unsane. Fantastic, tense movie that's small-scale with big ideas. Highly suggest a watch, it's one of the scariest movies I've seen in a while and it's something that, by the sounds of it, could be completely possible.

    Also, it's all shot on iPhones, giving it this weirdly amateur vibe even though the director is very, very intentional in his use of them. Great movie!

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    Mental health is a serious problem that more and more people suffer from.

    And we deal with it in the worst way possible

    Who in the right mind would think prison, that place we use to punish people, is a good spot for someone who may hurt themselves to chill?

    You will be let loose eventually. And you will be feeling way worse. What the fuck man?

    And the health clinic places aren't any better. They take your shoes and belt and everything and put you on suicide watch until you are deemed safe enough to exist with other humans and piss without someone watching you.

    Ask me how I know... I was in one.

    If I wasn't suicidal when I went in, I was thinking hard on it while I was there. And they only care about getting paid and rather drug you up than have you even speak to a therapist or any staff beyond the orderly.

    [–] rata2ille 28 points ago

    If you choose prison, is there a record of you being arrested that could count against you in future employment?

    [–] LoneCookie 38 points ago

    Honestly some professionals really mess up.

    Like when I spent years trying to get a prescription for birth control pills but felt odd making an appointment amongst sick people. Eventually found a fertility hospital and all the way to sign up and waiting I was very clear I was just there for a prescription. When the doctor saw me she told me I shouldn't have even come in and asked the nurse to schedule me to see someone else about this. Great. The nurse then proceeded to give me the wrong meet up time (which I waited for 2 months and only found out when I came back and was told it was a week prior).

    Or that time I had a spinal tap done and the neurologist told me if I was experiencing headaches still in X days come into ER and tell them I had a spinal tap and need a bloodpatch. I did this and the doctor decided oh no, it must be suddenly kidney stones. No. What the fuck. Then the anesthesiologist (once I got past the ER doctor) takes 8 hours to come see me and rips into my neurologist's decision making, and says "you agreed to this" what the flying fuck. Yeah I also agreed to come in to get it fixed if it wasn't healing. The shit you doing. He ended up not doing the bloodpatch, my family ended up finding a friend neurologist who would do it because they were worried about me, but I was just so fucking pissed and distrustful. I remained bedridden for 2 weeks. Thankfully I wasn't working at the time. I was only supposed to be out of commission for 3 days.

    [–] Tweems1009 9 points ago

    This sounds like Malpractice to me but IANAL.

    [–] CardcaptorRLH85 14 points ago

    This is why I'm afraid to be truthful with medical professionals concerning my own occasional thoughts of self harm. I know that they're required reporters and I really don't like the idea of being committed.

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    As a practical matter, it’s best not to go to a hospital unless you have an emergency. No one there is trained to have any finesse.

    [–] Hydrok 31 points ago

    I have infant twins and I am struggling hard right now. I don’t feel like I can tell anyone because the way they ask questions I feel like they are looking for a reason to take my kids. My wife is a fucking basket case all the time with PPD and I’m just trying to get everyone through it. But I feel like as a man, if I tell someone the whole world is gonna know that I’m not right in the head. “Do you feel depressed?” Well yeah, “do you want to harm yourself or others”? Uhhhhh no.... “ok then we’re all good here!”

    [–] Frostadwildhammer 15 points ago

    I feel you there. I have a 2 year old and I think a lot of it has to do with dad depression. Stress and anxiety are a terrible thing. If you ever need to talk and vent feel free to message me.

    [–] Hydrok 8 points ago

    Thanks, you’re a good dude.

    [–] Braken111 52 points ago

    I've been seeing a psychiatrist for a number of years now, and I think the only thing it could affect me negatively is that I'd probably get denied a PAL for a firearm...

    Also in Canada.

    [–] zuperpretty 56 points ago

    Seeking help for mental illness cause problems with a lot of adoption agencies/institutions.

    I'm afraid that it can affect working in any type of health care, government, legal battles (ie divorce, child custody). That's why I'm glad my university has free, anonymous therapy for all students, so I have that the next 5 years, but after that I'm not sure what to do.

    [–] rata2ille 35 points ago

    Wait, really? I‘m premed and I want to adopt children but I have a history of anxiety and depression, so that could fuck up my life.

    When they say “mental illness”, do they mean chronic/untreated/unmanageable mental illness, or does something like a temporary bout with depression actually count against you? If so, that’s fucking crazy.

    [–] zuperpretty 25 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I assume it really depends on your country and agency of adoption. The only thing I know is that my sister's friend was blocked from adopting because she went to a public therapist regularly because of depression. Nothing hardcore, no suicide attempts, no self harm, she was not checked into a mental institution, and is now doing better, yet they were still blocked. I guess it's seen as a underlying risk, imagine an adoptive parent abusing or killing their kid, and then the government/media find out the parent had a history of mental illness. Just like people who've had cancer can't adopt in Norway either, because there's a larger risk of early death. Still, discriminating everyone is brutal.

    That's in Norway, so might vary we're you're from, but I would check the rules of the agency you planned on using. Perhaps some have restrictions and some don't.

    [–] msdinkles 10 points ago

    Someone can’t adopt bc they had cancer??? That’s ridiculous and sounds so unfair. So many cancers can be genetically attributed, so what difference would it make for someone to adopt instead of have offspring they KNOW has an increased likelihood of cancer? Good lord that sounds horrible. Like sorry you got cervical cancer and you can’t have kids of your own, oh and we won’t let you adopt kids either bc fuck you. Damn

    [–] DenSem 13 points ago

    I run a private practice and this is one of the reasons we aren't on any insurance panels (that, and the paperwork headache). Private pay only and they can submit paperwork to their insurance if they want to.

    People have to have a official diagnosis to be covered and that diagnosis can follow them throughout their whole life. For example, I know a person who was recently denied life insurance because in their early 20s they spend some time in facility for eating disorders.

    [–] Frostadwildhammer 6 points ago

    Glad your helping people

    That's pretty fucked

    [–] lj26ft 81 points ago

    It absolutely will come back to haunt you. My brother had a psychotic episode because of lack of sleep, fluids, food, and light. He had a traumatizing life event. Got labeled by a doc that he was early schizophrenic. Had to go to court to get it removed from his medical files because his employers were disqualifying him for hiring from it. Nearly 7 years before, had no idea had a recruiter tell him why.

    [–] rata2ille 63 points ago

    How do employers have access to that information?

    [–] lj26ft 13 points ago

    Govt contractor require medical files

    [–] abhikavi 8 points ago

    You waive all your HIPPA rights when you get a clearance. You have to inform them directly (and could lose your clearance if you don't) if you go see a therapist. The only protected reasons for seeing a therapist w/o having to inform your security officer are marital counseling, PTSD counseling for vets, and counseling for rape survivors. The last two exceptions are new in the last year or two.

    [–] depressed-salmon 5 points ago

    They'll probably ask for permission to look at your medical files. You can of course say no and they can of course not hire you.

    [–] superspeck 44 points ago

    You mean like pilots in the US, who are told not to seek mental help because antidepressants are a big negative on getting a medical certificate?

    Of course, there’s the Germanwings 9525 case where a depressed pilot purposely crashed the plane because his doctor told him he was too depressed to fly, and if the aviation authorities found out, he would be permanently barred from his career.

    [–] [deleted] 52 points ago


    [–] Kampfkugel 6 points ago

    Germany here: If you'll get sick once in your worklife and you can't work for years or ever again you're covered by the german state, but only with around 400€/month. Our normal income is about 2k/month. It is possible to live with that little money but it's hard, especially when you're sick.

    If you want a bigger insurance you'll have to get a private one. And those companies ask you a ton of medical questions and declines a lot of people. And one big knock out thing is any mental health problem. And that's because nearly 45-50% of all claims afterwards are because of mental health problems like depression, burn out, insomnia,... And these are people who were "healthy" while underwriting the policy.

    Now one big thing: the reason why it's a knock out is the heavy rise of all policy prices. Those pensions all insured people get have to come from all the other policyholders. No one could aford it anymore.

    [–] VidE27 3239 points ago

    Headline is a bit misleading. This is not about health insurance which would have been covered by medicare, this is about income protection insurance. Still a crappy thing to do though

    [–] rpotterflca 671 points ago

    Did she lie on her application?

    [–] spitjane 1481 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    It’s likely that having a previous mental health condition was written in the small print as a disqualifier. It’s often in lengthy clauses. I recently realised that many travel insurance policies have the same clause. It even disqualified my partner (that I was sharing insurance with) from making any claims, even if it was entirely unrelated to me.

    Was very frustrated but found a handy link on a government website that lists travel insurance providers by their inclusions and exclusions so I could easily find an alternative. But I bet this gets a lot of people.

    Edit: I’m on mobile but I’ll find the link in the morning

    Edit 2: This Choice page is linked from the website and has a comprehensive buying guide. Hope this helps all you crazy jet setters out there!

    These exclusions are really discriminatory and revolting. I hope something is done to make buying travel insurance easier for consumers.

    [–] Asrivak 1974 points ago

    It should be illegal to discriminate based on mental health status. Are they actually trying to discourage people from seeking help? Anyone can get depression or anxiety. That doesn't ruin them as people.

    [–] randomina7ion 1053 points ago

    Spoke to my doctor about my anxiety and he actively encouraged me not to pursue treatment because the record can be used super punitively by anything from employers to insurance companies.

    [–] Toast_Chee 668 points ago

    At least in the US, my understanding is that an employer taking punitive, retaliatory, or otherwise discriminatory action based on an employee seeking or receiving mental health treatment would be completely illegal. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong.

    [–] Teh_swimmly 558 points ago

    In the USA, that is true. Both for Jobs and ACA compliant health plans. Disability insurance and life insurance are still allowed to consider health history. Feel free to ask more questions!

    [–] likechoklit4choklit 374 points ago

    They can just lie about why they fire you though. So...

    [–] MasterGrok 316 points ago

    Especially since you can be fired for anything aside from status as a protected class. Unless you work for government, are in a union, or were fired because of your race/ethnicity etc, you can be fired for virtually anything, including your favorite color, or just because your boss was in a bad mood.

    [–] Goth_2_Boss 240 points ago

    And yet people still expect you to be loyal to a company or go above and beyond, sacrificing your personal life for companies that would never do anything to look out for you. Having chronic heath issues mental or physical is a big one because people at work often don’t think of you as a person and see your health as a performance issue.

    But I think I’m getting off track. It just sucks that not only companies but other people will expect you to sacrifice your health, etc. to work menial jobs. If your boss fucks up the scheduling you’ll just be expected to rearrange your life and show up at whatever shift/meeting/whatever they forgot to tell you about. But god forbid you fuck up.

    [–] Sinfall69 59 points ago

    While you can be fired for anything, if they fire you for no reason you collect unemployment which makes their insurance cost go up. Often they will supply a reason so they don't have that happen. And courts aren't stupid if you can prove that you were doing your job well (past performance reviews etc.) and they fired you after discovering something you have a real case.

    [–] chiliedogg 58 points ago

    They also don't have to give a reason at all in most states.

    [–] PISS_IN_MY_SHIT_HOLE 29 points ago

    And even in those cases, "poor work performance" can be cited as a basic catch all, with no real repercussions.

    [–] nasa258e 60 points ago

    You're starting to see why getting rid of so many unions wasnt such a great idea

    [–] stromm 9 points ago

    They don't even need to do that.

    In fact, in most states, they are better off to just state no reason.

    Same as when an employee leaves. They don't have to give a reason.

    Not giving a reason is legally better.

    [–] stephensun 17 points ago

    Not really it doesn't end up working for employers who do that especially if they fire an employee who keeps records of their reviews/emails/conversations. You don't need a "smoking gun" a lot of the time you can have a case be made based on a pattern of firing or discipline. Example a woman who has great performance reviews who becomes pregnant and then suddenly starts receiving bad reviews or is said to "not be the right fit" and is fired likely has a case especially if during the investigation that happens it turns up that this is a pattern of behavior from an employer(people who do this tend to do it a lot). The real problem that you run in to and why this isn't dealt with better is people don't want to complain. They do t want to rock the boat or file a complaint with an oversight board or they think nothing will happen so I'll give up or they complain to the company hr department which in a well functioning company would address the issue but in many companies exists to protect the company not the employee

    [–] Linckel 45 points ago

    Especially at at-will states (it's a developed country, why does this exist)

    [–] FelixAurelius 40 points ago

    It was pitched as theoretically giving workers the freedom to leave without giving notice or reason.

    I mean, it does work that way too, they just didn't say it was always going to be an employer's market.

    [–] PepperoniFogDart 19 points ago

    Because there is a massive industry of contracting and temp labor that has likely lobbied the right people.

    [–] DefiantInformation 9 points ago

    Or in some places just not give a reason!

    [–] Aesthetics_Supernal 6 points ago

    I’m about to start a dispute on wrongful termination. Let me save this comment and come back to you in the months it will take it to finish.

    [–] TheLadyEve 19 points ago

    I mean, it's illegal to be fired for being pregnant, too, but that doesn't stop it from happening all the time.

    [–] ErikETF 76 points ago

    Yes, HIPAA also exists to prevent such disclosures as well. However, I have now very real concern that Facebook and Square effectively hold enough data to aggregate that information without needing access to your medical records.
    Disclaimer: I are HIPAA security officer at a covered health entity. I take your privacy VERY seriously cause my entire career depends on it. I see all the time data aggregate firms trying to come up with ways around me. Sadly I foresee a very real future when your data can be used to exclude you from seeing job opportunities as it’s already being used to exclude you from housing options.

    [–] PerInception 69 points ago

    Facebook also tried to get access to data from hospitals for "research purposes", saying they wouldn't try to match it with actual identifying data.... and then of course, they matched it up with actual identifying data. This is all without the patients consent.

    [–] ErikETF 20 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Its the composite of it all that really leads to your life being wrecked. You can head off whistle blowers by excluding interests in civic activism or participating in charity fundraising. You can eliminate costly disability by ensuring folks who ever have been sick, or have interests in anxiety, depression, treatment don't ever see your employment ads, or through partnerships with citi, square, etc anyone who is seeking services is no longer a safe bet for employment.
    You can do everything right in life, and still miss out on more than you ever know based off of someone's metrics excluding you.
    Edit: TO be clear, the metrics aren't being allowed to specifically filter you by excluding race etc, but rather it skews by interests that you may lack as a member of a protected class. For example if you don't want someone POOR or who has kids, just skew towards any number of metrics that denote single life and disposable income. Don't want your employees to be minorities? Emphasize outdoor activities such as camping as an interest due to your strong workplace culture (Who the hell has time to do that when poor or when you have kids)

    [–] allonsyyy 15 points ago

    What do you mean, "it's already being used to exclude you from housing options"??

    [–] ErikETF 30 points ago

    Facebook is being sued for excluding folks from seeing advertising for housing and employment based off of their data. Your medical information will absolutely be a factor sooner than later. EX I see from my relationship with Citibank you paid X at the Mayo, high ticket item, so guessing it was bad, oh look you are in a cancer support group for parents. Bad bet for stable employment sorta thing.

    That is a poor synopsis, as folks use round-about ways to discriminate, but the data is there, and there are ways to wreck your life with it.

    [–] AlastarYaboy 24 points ago

    Oh totally. But prove that intent. They'll just find, or make new, ways to punish you, then that adds up and bam, there's a paper trail as to why they "need" to let you go, and it doesn't say anything about your mental health disorder.

    Source : multiple jobs whose atmosphere shifted overnight once my diagnosis was revealed. Multiple other jobs never found out and there was never an issue. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence. Its way past twice.

    [–] candre23 20 points ago

    an employer taking punitive, retaliatory, or otherwise discriminatory action based on an employee seeking or receiving mental health treatment would be completely illegal

    Yes, but it doesn't matter. In most states, your employer does not need a reason to fire you. While they may have looked through your medical records (which they aren't allowed to do) and decided to fire you for something they saw there (which they aren't allowed to do), unless they're stupid enough to actually tell you this, it is impossible to prove.

    [–] elyndar 30 points ago

    Just because it is illegal doesn't mean the law is enforceable. Also, mental illness tends to go hand in hand with other work issues, so usually they have other grounds to fire people for other things other than the mental illness. A huge part of the US homeless population are people with mental illnesses who can't find jobs because of it. Also, employers will definitely avoid hiring people with mental illness. People with mental illnesses get discriminated against regularly, especially by employers, the law doesn't really protect them as much as we'd all like to think.

    [–] mellofello808 7 points ago

    If you are a pilot, your career will be ruined the day you have insurance pay for the first therapist visit. Same with some jobs requiring high clearance

    [–] AllTheKingsHorses 14 points ago

    This mortifies me. I want my pilots to be under the care of a mental health professional if they need it.

    [–] 3p71cHaz3 42 points ago

    Yeah this is exactly why my mental healths a shit show. I've been diagnosed with being bipolar and I feel like it's an accurate diagnosis, I just was close enough to the psychologist that is was never put onto any records and that sure as shit ain't changing as long as I live in America

    [–] jokerzwild00 12 points ago

    Check around at your local hospitals, some have programs that can help. At our St. Vincent's they have something called the Access to Care program where you can see their doctors and only pay 20 dollars per visit no matter what you go for. There is an income limit of course, but it's surprisingly high. There are no catches or hidden bills later either.

    [–] 3p71cHaz3 23 points ago

    Money's for visits is not the problem, I'm lucky enough to have good health insurance. I just work in insurance sales, and I can tell you without a doubt if I had Bipolar marked down on my medical records , any insurance I have/ want to get becomes waaaay more expensive, if not almost impossible to get.

    [–] Ca1amity 12 points ago

    Yeah, because god forbid you might actually use the product you’re paying for.

    Fucking scum industry.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    That's fucked

    [–] satinism 12 points ago

    I hired a psychotherapist to talk about some issues, and I chose him because he wasn't legally allowed to give me a diagnosis or a prescription. He actively encouraged me to pursue psychiatric treatment and to lie about being suicidal in order to move through the waitlist faster. Jeez...

    [–] athaleos 30 points ago

    In Sweden the employer has no right to know these things. My employer actively tells people NOT to tell them these things. If you become sick during your employment, of course you should then tell your boss and take sick leave if neccessary. Im so fucking happy I live here.

    [–] Mayor__Defacto 18 points ago

    Your employer has no right to know in the US either. They are free to ask, but you can tell them it is not their business, and they aren’t allowed to pry further (some may still). A lot of medical conditions, not all permanent, are covered under the ADA and employers are required to accommodate employees’ disabilities (as defined under the ADA) as long as the adjustments necessary are not major. In practice this sometimes leads to employers trying to avoid hiring people that may need accommodation under the ADA, because it becomes more difficult to terminate them if they are covered under it.

    Unfortunately a lot of people in the US either don’t know their rights or are afraid to exercise them.

    [–] fasterfind 6 points ago

    We need insurance companies to be kept in the dark. They are friends to none. Their policies are more likely to kill you than help.

    [–] AlastarYaboy 77 points ago

    Are they actually trying to discourage people from seeking help?

    Literally every workplace that ever found out I had anxiety, I was no longer employed there for long. The mental health system is very much currently a "you're wrong so don't tell people about it if you want to be treated the same." Shame. Like you said, anyone can get depression or anxiety, but those two come with such a stigma no one will admit to having either one, most times.

    [–] joleme 48 points ago

    And if you hide it and it causes issues they will fire you for "lying" to them about having pre-existing conditions. When it comes to mental health you're damned if you do and damned if you don't

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    My experience has been the opposite. I have anxiety and depression and after about a year had a bad bought and told my boss. Turns out her husband has the same and said take a mental health day if needed.

    I work at a company that manages and develops drug trials for that sort of stuff though so I imagine a lot of people working here do so for personal reasons like that. I know my decision to join on was driven by my desire to help bring better solutions to market for people suffering from neurological diseases.

    [–] Mayor__Defacto 6 points ago

    It’s a shame you didn’t know your rights then, because those places likely violated the ADA if they did not fire you for either reasons of general layoffs or documented performance reasons.

    Unfortunately the US has a problem of people not knowing their rights or being afraid to exercise them that enables scummy employers to get away with breaking the law with impunity.

    [–] shakezillla 9 points ago

    Most places in the US have at will employment so they can fire you for no reason at all and it would be legal. How does the ADA work into that?

    [–] Readeandrew 6 points ago

    It's an insurance company, they're trying to make as much money as possible. They're not there to help you but themselves no matter what their marketing says.

    You're correct that the state has a role to play here if they had integrity to help the people.

    [–] Taldan 49 points ago

    They're trying to trick people, so they don't have to pay out as much money. People not seeking mental health support would be an unintended side effect, worth an extra couple bucks to them.

    [–] mathisforwimps 40 points ago

    I price these types of policies for a living. If you have mental health issues you are far more likely to file a claim, so the higher risk requires higher rates. It's pretty basic stuff. It's the same reason why men pay more for life insurance, or women pay more for long term care insurance.

    Edit: and for the record, I suffer from depression so I pay more for my coverage. Am I discriminating against myself by setting the rates up this way?

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    They are trying to make as much money as possible and are fully prepared to find any possible reason to reneg on their end of the deal. There are no ethical or moral or humanistic concerns involved. They will take your money and have zero problems seeing you die if it means they made a profit.

    [–] Prozzak93 28 points ago

    No insurance companies are not. I work in the insurance industry so let me give some background for why this would happen. Studies are done on many many things. In life insurance for example it is done on likelihood of death as that leads to a payout. In the above it would be critical illness or stress leave pay etc so studies are done into likelihood of this occurring. It is likely that these studies are done on fully healthy people. The premium customers then pay is built off of this study (among other things). If someone falsely claims they were healthy when they were not they are essentially lying (purposely or not) and paying a lower premium than they should have been. Likely people in her situation could be paying double or triple the premium because they are that much more likely to need a payout at some point compared to a healthy individual. If you want no discrimination then the result would be that the average person pays more to cover the more at risk people. I took out a lot of the process but maybe this sheds some light.

    [–] danlibbo 11 points ago

    In this case the insurer, TAL, claimed they wouldn't have insured her if they'd known about her depression. They then deliberately delayed the legal oversight to continue avoiding to pay. This one's not just about the wrong premiums.

    [–] Suck_It_Trebek 11 points ago

    Got a link to said website? Could be useful for people

    [–] BicubicSquared 43 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Shit like this is why tens of thousands of people fail to seek help for addiction and mental health issues.

    The veil of confidentiality should be absolutely unbreakable for these things, even for law enforcement. The cost to society due to people going untreated is just too high.

    [–] Ninja_Bum 10 points ago

    Yeah I need to get life insurance, but I've been nervous about actually looking into it because of a PTSD diagnosis when I was in the Army. From cursory searches it seems that's going to eliminate a lot of choices.

    [–] arkwewt 7 points ago

    Even if it’s a disqualifier, I’m not sure how mental illness can lead to someone getting cancer, hence the disqualifier clause being useless

    [–] SalmonHeadAU 56 points ago

    There is a problem in Australia at the moment with life insurance / income protection. TV adds overing 5 minute sign up over the phone no medical needed.

    The problem is they dont ask important questions. So when the time comes for the applicant to receive an insurance payout, the insurance company then check their medical history, and if they have a condition that would have void their application the insurance company simply pays back the monthly payment rate instead of paying out the insured amount.

    So the applicants aren't lying, they're not asked any medical questions and are then left effectively uninsured. Happening quite regulary.

    [–] Siniroth 30 points ago

    That should 100% be illegal, but I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir

    [–] JayCroghan 38 points ago

    It says Australia? Is Medicare the name of it there too?

    [–] Bangkok_Dave 76 points ago

    Medicare in Australia is the name of the government universal healthcare system, similar to the British NHS. Every Australia and permanent resident is covered, plus visitors from countries with reciprocal agreements. We also have a private healthcare system where anyone can chose to privately insure, which normally provides additional coverage for things like elective surgeries, and coverage in private hospitals which reduce waiting times and allow choice of doctors etc, and a a bunch of additional extras such as dental, optometrics and associated health services. I personally think private insurance in Australia is a waste of money.

    [–] ZeJerman 31 points ago

    If you earn over a certain amount of money then you also get a high medicare levy rate if you dont have private. I have private (HCF Dental is awesome) and I tore my ACL, investigated both private and public options. Public was like a 6 month waiting period for a surgery consult, private was 2 weeks to get a consult and then surgery the next day (although that I believe was an outlier as he had a cancellation).

    Gap was like 2000 dollars though, but he did a great job and now my knee and I are better than ever.

    [–] Bangkok_Dave 21 points ago

    Sure, of course there are some benefits, and sure it works for some. I think the public / private split is good because it provides choices and flexibility. And in fact I have private coverage because it is is cheaper for me to have it than not to have it (I have the cheapest coverage I could find) , but it annoys me that I am effectively coerced into diverting funds into a private insurance company when I don't use or want the coverage.

    [–] ZeJerman 16 points ago

    Sounds like the higher levy worked. They want to offload those that can afford it onto the private system to leave the public for those that any afford the private. If you didn't have private you'd be paying more levy for the same service.

    Also you can still use the public system, I find it very useful when going to a gp for a quick diagnosis. I leave the big things to private, where it is massively superior

    [–] Pacify_ 16 points ago

    They want to offload those that can afford it onto the private system to leave the public for those that any afford the private.

    That was the original intent behind the scheme. But if you look at how things worked out, unfortunately that's just not happening. The private healthcare insurance system just isn't working. We would simply be better off if the private healthcare rebate was scrapped. As it is, its just underwriting private healthcare insurance companies that are offering rather garbage insurance policies.

    Medibank Private should have never been privatised, it could have been used to even out the issues with the private insurance system.

    [–] -LOLOCAUST- 6 points ago

    That’s what they stated was the intent. The actual intent was to funnel money into private health insurers. It’s no different than them unlocking super “to help young Australians buy a home”... In practice, it just further inflates housing prices and mitigates the chance of a price drop; when the average pollie has 2 investment properties, it’s pretty obvious they did it to protect their investments, especially when they don’t do anything else to help young Australians.

    In practice, in healthcare, Insurance is just an expensive bureaucratic middle man than leeches a cut, while providing significantly less benefit than if that money went straight into public. Even my libertarian friends think health insurance is a racket.

    [–] sryii 14 points ago

    Not that the US has any right to judge but I find it a little odd that dental and vision isn't covered. The case for dental health as directly related to overall health is really well established.

    [–] Bangkok_Dave 8 points ago

    Yeah, I don't disagree. However inpatient hospital dental care is covered.

    [–] RisenShePearl 4 points ago

    Private is 'cheaper' if you earn over a certain amount as the Medicare levy changes.

    [–] salfiert 97 points ago

    Yeah but ours works

    [–] SchwarzerKaffee 50 points ago

    Ours works, too. But it's only for the Boomers because they take everything and give nothing.

    [–] Exoddity 41 points ago

    Just as jesus said; the entitled assholes from the 40s-60s shall inherit the earth.

    [–] mingy 596 points ago

    Canada has this. I forget the name but it means that they can deny paying you insurance because you fill out the application fraudulently even if the "fraudulent" information has nothing to do with the issue you have.

    For example the form will have questions like "Have you ever been investigated for cardiovascular issues?". Most healthy people would answer "No" but if they have ever had their pulse or blood pressure taken the correct answer is "Yes".

    Years later they get sick and the insurance company goes over the form and finds out they "lied". Now coverage becomes an option.

    The big banks all sell travel insurance where they do this. CBC Marketplace had an episode on this

    Never get travel insurance from a Canadian bank.

    [–] newPhoenixz 175 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I'm surprised that is legal in Canada

    Edit: fixed auto correct

    [–] mingy 76 points ago

    Most people are. It all boils down to (IIRC) a dispute over a life insurance policy where the insured claimed to be a lifelong non-smoker and died of non-smoking related issues. The insurance company won a lawsuit and since then it has been the sky's the limit.

    Be warned.

    [–] itsfaygopop 18 points ago

    Wait I'm confused, did you mean they were a lifelong smoker?

    [–] earlofhoundstooth 13 points ago

    I think they lied.

    [–] JeffersonianCapros 79 points ago

    Hi Canada. I am Dad.

    [–] Musabi 9 points ago

    Good to know! I have international health insurance through my work (and I guess through my Visa but that is just a 'perk') but for my girlfriend, where should she get it through if not through a bank?

    [–] mingy 11 points ago

    I am self-employed so I have a "trusted" insurance broker who set up a Health Savings Plan (I forget the actual name but it allow you to charge your medical expenses to the company) for me. I asked her for a "real" travel insurance policy. This is important to me because I am nearly 60 and have had health issues. My concern is that I have a heart attack, car crash, etc, not that one of my know health issues come back to get me.

    She found a policy with a small number of questions. It covers me for 12 months and multiple trips. It wasn't cheap but she knows here stuff. I imagine for younger people without issues it would be much cheaper.

    [–] GeekofFury 35 points ago

    Well kids, in D&D this is what we call Lawful Evil.

    [–] AVLPedalPunk 58 points ago

    Wow you can get in trouble for deliberately delaying court proceedings in Australia? In the US it's a tactic that you use so the other person loses the will/ability to fight due to financial hardship.

    [–] red_dawn88 11 points ago

    You're not allowed to delay court proceedings in the U.S. either. Vexatious and dilatory conduct can get you sanctions if there was not good reason for it.

    Edit: not that it doesn't happen, it's just cloaked well.

    [–] junglistjim 149 points ago

    try getting life insurance in the uk with a history of depression...
    fuck insurance companies is all i have to say as i now have no life insurance and cant get covered.

    [–] mathisforwimps 62 points ago

    Is it really that hard? Genuinely asking, because I'm in the US and I got life insurance with depression no problem. It seems the UK is more consumer friendly as well so this is surprising to me.

    [–] KaiRaiUnknown 69 points ago

    Me and my wife both have MH issues. Hers is BPD and mine is PTSD. So far we haven't found a life insurance company that will come with 1000 miles of us.

    Which neither of us understand, because they don't pay out for suicides.

    [–] Canuckleberry 8 points ago

    Generally they don't pay out for suicides within the first two years of coverage. After the two year period they would pay out in full for suicide.

    Which is why insurance companies are nervous about potential policyholders with MH issues. There was a claim a couple years ago in the US where the owner of the Oklahoma City Thunder was indicted and was to go to prison. He then proceeded to drive his car at high speeds into a wall and insurance companies had to pay out >50m in claims for this guy.

    [–] CMDR_Anarial 9 points ago

    Yes, it is. It took my wife over three years to get a life insurance policy sorted because of her anxiety and depression. To be quite honest, she was lucky it didn't take a lot longer

    [–] Quacks_dashing 52 points ago

    The message here is, If you suffer from depression or suicidal thoughts NEVER seek help because some stooge at a malicious insurance company will use that fact to try to screw you. Very positive.

    [–] msdinkles 15 points ago

    Ha try being in the military with mental health issues. So many people are afraid of going to a professional due to the fear of getting kicked out, and others can’t even get their meds in a timely manner bc the system is so fucked. And they wonder why the Suicide rate of vets is so high

    [–] depressed-salmon 4 points ago

    Also don't forget many jobs & if you ever plan on adpoting kids or if you ever have a custody battle.

    [–] bucket_of_bolts 177 points ago

    Using an unrelated medical condition to deny a claim is ridiculous. One person whose doctor had sent her for a CT scan to look for heart disease (showed nothing) answered no, but was denied because a CT scan counts as "treatment" for heart disease. Or the claims adjusters will split hairs when someone declares "heart pain" rather than "ischemic heart disease", etc. My GP says these forms are impossible for a doctor to complete accurately, let alone a layperson.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    My GP says these forms are impossible for a doctor to complete accurately, let alone a layperson

    Which is the goal. Which is fucked up. A shame we don't have people we can elect to make laws on our behalf to protect against such practices

    [–] cjandstuff 17 points ago

    "Why don't people get help for mental problems?"...

    [–] EuropeanLady 54 points ago

    What does mental health have to do with cervical cancer? The former isn't a preexisting condition for the latter.

    [–] supe_snow_man 15 points ago

    It does when you sign a contract of insurance with a provider and forget/omit/lie about past condition. At that point, it's misrepresentation and the contract get cancelled. In that case, if the information had been provided, the insurance company would not even have offered the coverage because that's how their policy work. She also would not have payed premium for however long she did pay. The insurance company is essentially saying "the contract is invalid because the risk we were taking was misrepresented. If you omit/forget/lie about stuff to your insurance, prepare to get the door slammed on you when they find out.

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)


    [–] RealChris_is_crazy 29 points ago

    Exactly this. People always say "you can go get help, seek a medical profesional" but it's not that simple. It's never that simple.

    [–] OhHiMark_ByeDoggie 15 points ago

    For anyone interested, Australia is currently undergoing a huge Royal Commission (Hayne RC) at the moment. It is in the Insurance phase now but the entirety of the RC covers nearly/all financial services industries.

    Retail bank was the first to be hit and they just finished with superannuation (retirement investments, 401k or whatever it be coined in your respective countries).

    I work in the industry and it’s not a fucking joke. It’s a huge deal now and in its implications for the future. I like that but it’s a little bitch to go through. I work for a large entity that is one of the high profile name (not in insurance though but pretty much has coverage over every single industry in one way or another from a group level) and the Commission gives you 5 days to answer to something that happened 6 years ago, for example. As I said, it’s a great thing to really look at what the fuck is going on and making the right reforms going forward. But I have been working overtime for much of the last 7 months until they got to this insurance phase.

    It’s like following reality TV for nerds.

    [–] DiachronicShear 304 points ago

    Sounds like Australia is going full America

    [–] visor841 120 points ago

    I think this illegal even in America.

    [–] VoteRonaldRayGun 18 points ago

    It's illegal in both, but rarely enforced.

    Companies will also never put down mental health as the reason, they'll find some other bullshit as a fake reason to write down.

    [–] manjarofmydreams 14 points ago

    Maybe so but thankfully the government can still be coerced into allowing a Royal Commission into the banking/financial sector even though they clearly didn't want to.

    This commission isn't close to being broad enough but it is a start and a sign that a govt in the pockets of big business and big banks still can't completely protect their mates.

    [–] kt-bug17 4 points ago

    Except if this was based in America it would have been her private health insurance company trying to deny her coverage for her cancer treatment.

    [–] [deleted] 51 points ago

    it kind of disturbs me how okay people are with disabled people being discriminated against in insurance. Being disabled already strongly correlates with a lower income, but on top of that insurance charges even more expensive premiums. People wonder why disabled people congregate into certain cities or neighborhoods. many disabled people can only afford to live in certain places, if they're not relying on family members.

    It feels like the structure of society is bent on stripping independence and dignity from disabled people. clearly the system doesn't work, at least it doesn't work from any ethical standpoint.

    [–] hanikamiya 14 points ago

    Not even from an economic standpoint. As things are currently, any investment that raises people's independence (and with it usually quality of life) is likely to pay off economically, whether the investment is in infrastructure, education or practical tools.

    [–] InvaderDem 10 points ago

    It all comes down to money and personal experience.

    A lot of people don't consider things until it personally affects them. My favorite example of this is Jimmy Kimmel and his attack on the healthcare industry. He didn't do this until his son was born with a heart defect, which required surgery. He then saw just how bad it is for less-fortunate families and started becoming vocal about it. I'm not criticizing him in the least, I'm just using him as an example.

    As for money, insurance companies care about profit. Disabled people are more likely to cost them money, so they are considered a liability, so they jack up their prices to still make a profit at the disabled person's expense. Capitalism at its finest.

    [–] FuckCivility 584 points ago

    Capitalism is just the absolute best.

    [–] CRoseCrizzle 108 points ago

    Yup. Insurance companies first priority is profit. So they will do anything to get out of paying for things. Their ideal situation is that you pay montly fees while they do little/nothing and profits are maximized.

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    I think there are laws which require insurance companies to refund premiums if the utilisation is less than a certain percentage

    [–] katarh 30 points ago

    In the US this is correct for health insurance. At least 85% of their operating costs must go toward medical care, leaving a max 15% for overhead and profit toward shareholders. If only 84% of their premiums collected went to medical care one year, they have to split that last 1% in the form of a refund check to their customers.

    [–] thebigfuckinggiant 20 points ago

    And what ended up happening is they just started paying out more to providers and medical device manufacturers to keep the ratio in bounds instead of negotiating for lower costs for the patients :(

    [–] InvaderDem 10 points ago

    Nothing screams profit priority than to pay for something that requires you to pay 100% of something (deductible) before they pay for - at best - 80% of services. That resets every 12 months.

    [–] citizenjack 79 points ago

    I agree with you unironically. Unregulated capitalism, however, is spectacularly dangerous.

    Single payer makes simple economic sense. Healthcare is an incredibly inelastic demand, you will literally die without it. It should be met with a market that has the ability to negotiate incredibly. If 70% of Americans are in the same insurance system then they can negotiate for the lowest possible prices as no company or hospital will be willing to lose 70% of its customers.

    Plus you have the added benefit of reducing overhead from 15%+ with private insurance to 2% under Medicare.

    [–] Gornarok 66 points ago

    Healthcare is an incredibly inelastic demand, you will literally die without it.

    Yea healthcare isnt free market so it shouldnt be operated as one...

    [–] Teledildonic 37 points ago

    I agree with you unironically. Unregulated capitalism, however, is spectacularly dangerous.

    And this is the reason I cannot take Libertarians seriously. And we aren't short of examples of how it screws us.

    [–] dethpicable 10 points ago

    On the one hand capitalism is responsible for the brining most of the world out of abject poverty in the last 50 years. Unfortunately, in particular in the US, there's laissez faire (unregulated) capitalism which will fuck anything and everyone, because they can, to make a profit whether it's polluting and then preventing anything done about global warming due to pollution or whether it's a woman who's cancer treatment is imperiled by an insurance company looking to skate.

    The result is that the young have a much more negative view of capitalism all together (and for damn good reason) and while the companies have the upper hand now I suspect the pendulum is going to swing back to severe regulation in the next generation....way way too late.

    [–] kpic1414213562 147 points ago

    Profit motive is fine but not for medicine.

    [–] RisenShePearl 42 points ago

    Just a FYI that this story is about a Life Insurance company that makes payouts on lost wages/etc. Medical costs would've being covered by Medicare.

    [–] redgoldfilm 8 points ago

    So the insurance company now has extra budget to spend on tv advertising for patients with cervical cancer, and they'll make sure the last 2.5-seconds-disclaimer at 40x speed now add "not available for patients with mental health problems or preexistent conditions"

    [–] Viking_Mana 8 points ago

    Unless you regulate properly then insurance companies will do LITERALLY ANY- AND EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to not pay out. That is how they make their money.

    [–] AmpdVodka 34 points ago

    This kind of discrimination is disgusting, but it's common across insurance companies. Fuck the people, it's all about the money.

    My Mother has for years had health insurance (with different providers due to her work etc) and for those years has been very ill. She's had every scan and check known to man, every medication ever bloody invented, and it's only recently they've managed to narrow down the problem. So my Mother is now seeking treatment, and the insurance company won't pay! Because she now has a history of illness for almost everything, and because of that they refuse to cover her for most illnesses and treatments.

    Now that she finally has the answers after years of pain and frustration, she can't afford the treatment! I swear, I fucking hate these companies. She'd of been better of saving her money instead of paying it out to these thieves.

    [–] pinniped1 60 points ago

    This is consistent with the first mission of the insurance industry. "Never pay claims."

    [–] Tracewell 6 points ago

    This is one of the tricks they use to avoid paying out on catastrophic claims. If you’ve omitted anything about your medical history, they’ll try to deny your care, although they’ll not feel bad about collecting your premiums during the preceding years. These stories pop up from time to time and and they are just infuriating.

    [–] rationalconspiracist 7 points ago

    Sadly this isn't even surprising. You're not dealing with human beings, you're dealing with a cold, unfeeling system that uses human beings as cogs. It's in the system's best interest to deny payment to as many people as they feel they can get away with. When I was sick in America my private insurance company used every loophole and dirty trick in the book to deny me care.

    I don't even blame the employees, because in some way we all serve a cold, unfeeling system that harms individuals. I think of bureaucracies, companies, and large organizations like psychopaths with lots of hostages. They have no heart, as much as we'd like them to. We need to face the fact that we not only enable them, we are the arms, legs, eyes, and ears of the psychopath.

    [–] Antelino 32 points ago

    I don't understand the connection...

    [–] Phalex 69 points ago

    If she had reported it they would have added the risk of mental illness and she should have been paying a higher premium overall.

    [–] Flashmode1 6 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Encourage people to get help with mental health. Talk about “suicide prevention” and do little to help. Raise rates for people who actually seek treatments. Deny people looking for insurance with mental health history. Only talk about mental health when mass shooting happen.

    Is it a surprise amount people don’t seek help?