Girl has blunt message for Aetna after her brain surgery request was denied

[grantcart]

80. Greedy is a pretty straight forward word, you should learn its meaning if you are going to use it.

The way that this news source edited the facts in the case was to make people angry about an insurance company because they wouldn't approve a procedure because of the costs when that is not true and if you didn't read the article you wouldn't see that fact buried deep in the story, and many of the people on this thread.

You, on the other hand, did read the article and continued to insist that, even though they approved another more expensive option that they are doing so for greed. Apparently you don't understand the word or have the ability to process the basic logic that the known facts provide.

At no point have I made any reference to the medical efficacy of one procedure over another. How can I without the patients' history and a current MRI? Perhaps there is a reluctance because she has shown a negative reaction to the medications that one procedure had over the other and that was the deciding factor. We can't know because we don't have the facts.

I seriously doubt that you are the best interlocutor about the medical issues involved because, let's face it, you are having trouble staying on point on this sub thread which is solely based on whether or not Aetna was "greedy" and whether the original article presented the facts in a straightforward way.

If I were to have a discussion about the efficacy of one option over the other I would wonder why you think that "removing the top of the skull" is a relevant fact because that procedure has, like many by-pass procedures, become rather routine. If I were to be the least bit interested in discussing medical issues over the internet with an anonymous person, and I am not, I would tell you that my brother had a significant drop in cognitive skills and the loss of the left side of his body ten days ago. All tests showed negative for either ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and so they concluded it was swelling of the brain. The took him into emergency and with the first available surgeon removed the top of the skull. He almost immediately improved and after a steroid treatment brought down the swelling and replaced the skull top. And walked out his old self in 5 days with his some additional stitches on his head but no other negative side effect. But I am not bringing that up because the whole discussion of any medical issue has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

So try and stay on topic.

The topic is: Aetna approved a more expensive treatment option. Whatever Aetna's reasons for not approving the procedure money was apparently not one of them. There is no fact in the story that indicates that Aetna's actions were intended to increase profit to shareholders in any way, or as you put it, greedy.

The issue is settled if you want to divert into completely non related issues. In the meantime I will remember your moniker and realizing that this is a person that doesn't respect the facts of a situation in their arguments will give you a wide berth.