3 ms·
On the contrary, the condition experienced by the author's spouse is direct evidence of a problem with the author's insurance provider, which in kind happens to
by foco_tubi 3mo ago
On the contrary, the condition experienced by the author's spouse is direct evidence of a problem with the author's insurance provider, which in kind happens to be a widespread practice in the industry. US health insurance providers have pivoted from denying claims based on pre-existing conditions to denying claims based on lack of history of pre-existing conditions.
Your links do not support the point you are trying to make, as those affected by NHS wait times are, in fact, not affected by insurance denials but rather the immense and unmet demand for medical personnel.
- plagiarist 3mo agoWell that one is the classic far-right talking point that overpaying to be denied healthcare is preferable to the bogeyman of "wait times." Their other popular talking point is that with private insurance you can choose which doctor explains that your coverage was denied.
- socalgal2 3mo agoClaiming something is far-right is the most common "bla bla bla I'm not listening to your valid factual point because I don't like it" comment on the internet.
- foco_tubi 3mo agoThe claim that this is a far-right talking point IS a factual point. Not only are you seemingly injecting your personal bias into the article and putting words in the author's mouth, but you are simultaneously negating the fact this is a far-right talking point because "you don't like it." Sheesh.
- socalgal2 3mo agoThey are evidence. you need care now. you don't get it. Regardless of the system. She's trying to claim there is some system where this wouldn't happen. There isn't. There is infinite need for healthcare and limited supply so some people will always be left out / denied.
- foco_tubi 3mo ago> She's trying to claim there is some system where this wouldn't happen Please point to the passage in the article where you see this claim being made.