4 ms·

I wonder if the treatment was really all about the "really great health insurance" and not just the doctors at the hospital deciding that they knew better than

I wonder if the treatment was really all about the "really great health insurance" and not just the doctors at the hospital deciding that they knew better than another doctor many hours away that had not seen the patient or the pictures of her spine. Upon reading the description of how the accident took place, my first thought was, "Really, is her insurance going to pay for that!?" And according to the last comment on her blog post, apparently the answer is, "No." I would imagine either hospital would have to have enough familiarity with that type of accident to question whether her insurance would cover it as well.

SarahCortes 17y ago
Ah,is that really a question? My comment on my blog that my health insurance decided it was best to leave me on the ledge to die of exposure was-need I say-tongue in cheek.You must be under the impression the insurance companies are in possession of that awesome perfect blame calculator - parsing an infinite number of scenarios to detemine blame for accidents and disease, then confirm or deny coverage based on their magic box. That is your insurance company, not mine. Please reply quickly, unless you are tied up arguing with them about whether they should cover your AIDS since everyone knows sharing needles is unsafe.
- nkassis 17y ago
  I got too say, I would be surprised if an insurance would not cover something like this. This is equivalent to a sports injury. Frankly no one can tell me that jumping off a cliff mountain biking is less dangerous than a bridge jump. I've bridge jumped before (not fifty feet I believe but high) and I wasn't the only one around, I didn't think it was that dangerous at the time but I understand how a bad landing could cause such an injury. Hell Olympic divers have really bad landings doing 33 feet dive and don't die.
  - DEinspanjer 17y ago
    The reason I questioned whether they would cover this is because in the past I've seen exclusion clauses that stated an insurance company would not cover extreme sports related injuries with a standard health insurance policy. The examples I remember for extreme sports were things like base jumping and bungee jumping and parachuting. I don't pretend to know much about this stuff. I did state that it was just a question I had. If insurance companies routinely cover people who have accidents while doing things significantly more dangerous than your typical day to day activities then that is great... I guess. The first part of my comment still stands regardless. I wonder how much of the battle was over getting insurance money and how much of it might have been over the doctor's ego.

SarahCortes 17y ago

Ah,is that really a question? My comment on my blog that my health insurance decided it was best to leave me on the ledge to die of exposure was-need I say-tongue in cheek.You must be under the impression the insurance companies are in possession of that awesome perfect blame calculator - parsing an infinite number of scenarios to detemine blame for accidents and disease, then confirm or deny coverage based on their magic box. That is your insurance company, not mine. Please reply quickly, unless you are tied up arguing with them about whether they should cover your AIDS since everyone knows sharing needles is unsafe.

nkassis 17y ago
I got too say, I would be surprised if an insurance would not cover something like this. This is equivalent to a sports injury. Frankly no one can tell me that jumping off a cliff mountain biking is less dangerous than a bridge jump. I've bridge jumped before (not fifty feet I believe but high) and I wasn't the only one around, I didn't think it was that dangerous at the time but I understand how a bad landing could cause such an injury. Hell Olympic divers have really bad landings doing 33 feet dive and don't die.
- DEinspanjer 17y ago
  The reason I questioned whether they would cover this is because in the past I've seen exclusion clauses that stated an insurance company would not cover extreme sports related injuries with a standard health insurance policy. The examples I remember for extreme sports were things like base jumping and bungee jumping and parachuting. I don't pretend to know much about this stuff. I did state that it was just a question I had. If insurance companies routinely cover people who have accidents while doing things significantly more dangerous than your typical day to day activities then that is great... I guess. The first part of my comment still stands regardless. I wonder how much of the battle was over getting insurance money and how much of it might have been over the doctor's ego.