Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Photos Lead To Cancellation of Quebec Woman's Insurance
No. 24601 writes "A Quebec woman on long-term sick leave, due to a diagnosis of depression, lost her health benefits after her insurance provider found photos of her on Facebook smiling and looking cheerful at parties and out on the beach. Besides all the obvious questions, how did the insurance company access her locked Facebook profile?"
First question, is she sure it was actually locked down? Some of those settings sound like nonsense to the non-technical.
Second, is she the one that posted the photos? If someone else posted photos of her on a public page, anyone can see them.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Facebook has so many little loopholes and you can be sharing information without realising it. I know a few people who think their accounts are locked down andyou can't view anything from their profile page. However their photo albums show up in other areas even if you can access it from their profile page. I assume they've not set the right settings for that particular album.
This is why I don't use my real name on Facebook or use my exact location. It may mean friends, relatives, etc find it harder to find me but if I want to speak to them then I'll look for them.
Evil insurance company, plain and simple. I am not saying that they all are, but this is beyond grasping at straws. This is healing someone because they are sick, and them kicking them to the curb and throwing them out because they show signs of recovery. She should sue them for making the depression worse. We should get together and figure out how to draw enough attention to put a stop to this, and make an example for other insurance companies.
This is a prime example why I don't think capitalism alone has all of the answers. If A needs B and C to prosper, and C needs A & B, A will rape B dry until C is so bad off that it is also hurting A. How does this make sense?
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
She also doesn’t understand how Manulife accessed her photos because her Facebook profile is locked and only people she approves can look at what she posts.
Oh, please, you're talking to a generation that grew up watching Dateline and 20/20 where insurance companies hired private investigators to stalk people who would do the following:
So then you'd see the companies hiring PIs to track the people (who allegedly could barely move) tearing it up at Disney World. Yeah, scam artists and fraudsters.
You shouldn't be surprised to see insurance companies being very proactive in their searches to follow up on people. I cannot say whether or not she is legitimately getting the short end of the stick or if she's defrauding the company. Sounds like the former. If she had made claims that she never smiled and couldn't go out in public due to depression then she might have problems. Why doesn't she just get her doctor to send a note to her insurance company explaining that people suffering from this magnitude of depression (and those recovering from it) can force themselves to smile for a picture? I mean, it's likely that the insurance company got tired of paying sick leave for depression unless it could be shown to be a chemical imbalance they probably were just looking for any reason to have to stop forking over pay.
Personally, I was offered $250 by my company's health insurance plan if I signed something that said I had not used tobacco products in the past 6 months. I hadn't but a few years ago I had (what I was told) were Cuban cigars in Mexico. Those friends put pictures of me on Facebook smoking them. So what? Well, if they found contrary evidence to my claim, I faced having my insurance terminated. Not worth the $250. Be aware of what Facebook puts on display for the world--even if you think it's private it's usually not. I mean, it could be as inane as some coworker who doesn't like her sees her other friend at work tagged in a photo with 'depressed' coworker on leave and decided to copy what photos they could see and forward them on to the insurance company?
My work here is dung.
after her insurance provider found photos of her on Facebook smiling and looking cheerful at parties and out on the beach....
Well, she was on benefits because she was diagnosed as depressed, and it's already been said that any psychiatrist worth their salt will tell you to get yourself out there and at least *try* to have a good time.
But seriously, this is a bit out of hand, hasn't anyone at her insurance carrier ever had a picture taken? What does the photographer usually scream at you?
SMILE!!!
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
I think this could rebound terribly (and rightfully) on the insurer.
The worst thing for a clinical depression is to stay closeted away. In the UK, there is no "social prescribing", where a GP may decide that the root of your troubles are a social disconnection. This disconnect raises stress, and is a sizable aspect in depression.
Rather than pump people full of antidepressants, they prescribe you a visit to a local social group that is ratified as being suitable for this (can be activity groups, plain social groups, heading to a gym, or whatever would best fit the person that's available).
This has had marked benefits to many that use the service.
Depression is always a fight, and when you fight it best, there's always a time that you smile. It may not last for long, but every point you can laugh and be brought out is an absolute gem. And there's no surprise that mates will take a pic of you when you're smiling and paste it on Facebook, rather than ones of you looking glum and disconnected.
One of those gems, for me, was years ago, just after my brother had had a massive car smash that left him on life support. One of my friends had first been blunt (there's nothing you can do, so get on with life while this goes on and things work themselves out), then actually managed to get me out and make me laugh. For just a minute; epic effort on his part, but it gave me a moment's respite, for which I'm eternally grateful.
Now, if anyone had dared to say to me in that minute or two of respite that I wasn't upset, torn up and terrified, I'd have torn them several new ones, and stomped on the pieces until the men in white coats dragged me off.
Smiling pictures of a depressive are not evidence they're not depressed. They're evidence that they have a good support network of people who are prepared to do the heavy emotional lifting to keep them going..
Cutting the insurance is going to make anyone depressive (or recovering depressive) fall far back down the treatment path..
Wouldn't be surprised to find this one in litigation sometime soon.
And you are hardly going to be post pictures of when you're unhappy, and people tend to smile just for photos, so you get a selective image of someone.
I have suffered from depression at some times in my life.
I found that you 'put on a face' sometimes to live a normal life. People around you don't want to see people with a miserable expression, talking in a depressive way and acting depressed all the time.
The way we appear look socially is virtually never a direct reflection of the way we really feel, for anyone, depressed or not. We choose how much of what we really feel we communicate to others. If this were not the case then it would be impossible even to go shopping while clinically depressed.
If the social situation calls for smiling and looking cheerful, well, that's what you do.
Yeah.
A cancer patient might be rather sick, but make an extra effort for special events.
What next? They're going to cancel insurance for cancer patients if they look like they're better?
An insurance agent is unlikely to be an authoritative expert on medical matters (or in the rarefied field of "psychiatric diagnosis via facebook photos") - they may know some stuff (just like I do), but when it comes to a court case or other legal stuff it should not be their call to make. If the insurance company has doubts they should insist that the policy holder be examined by a certified expert in the relevant field. After all, it's not unusual that you have to go for a medical examination when you sign up for certain sorts of insurance. They don't just leave it to an insurance agent to say "hmm she looks ok to me".
Too bad if her case is genuine she'll likely be too depressed to sue them (unless she can afford her meds and is still taking them).
So will this new "no denial for existing conditions" Congressional law stop this stuff from happening? I hope so. I understand insurance companies need to watch out for fraudsters, but they should have more evidence than "we saw her smiling" to deny coverage.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Some people are not as able to cope with depression as you claim to be. I have a few friends who suffer, and if they were not receiving medication and therapy, they would never have the will to see daylight, let alone accomplish anything. For them, it is not a matter of biting the bullet, they need help, and thankfully they receive it.
Palm trees and 8
I have a few friends who suffer, and if they were not receiving medication and therapy, they would never have the will to see daylight, let alone accomplish anything
I'm not biting the bullet by myself. Wellbutrin is the greatest thing ever invented and I've got no problem writing out the 2 cents per paycheck to the FEds or my insurance so that people that need psych meds can get them. Without meds, its just aweful.
This is my sig.
from my post on TFA:
Here's the thing, it doesn't really matter if she is plain old lazy, or truly depressed.
The issue here is that the insurance company is making the call, and it is not their job to make that decision.
The insurance company's job is to collect premiums and pay out when the doctor says "this person has a bad back" or "this person has a broken leg" or "this person is clinically depressed".
It is my assumption that this woman has regular meetings with a doctor at which time she is assessed to see - "is she still depressed?", "Has there been any improvement?", etc.
THAT is the ONLY information the insurance company needs to make their decision.
Anything else, such as info from FACEBOOK, does not tell the whole story, hell, it might not tell ANY part of the story. It may be irrelevant, and it may just be misinterpreted completely by someone who lacks the professional designation to be making decisions and pointing fingers in the first place.
The insurance company no doubt will argue that the have to "protect their assets" and that "people scam insurance co. all the time". While that is no doubt true, we must not forget that the insurance companies make plenty of cash by ripping people off on a daily basis. It's a two way street.
Bottom line, insurance companies HAVE to take the advice of "trusted" professionals, trusted or not, really. That is why we have doctors and lawyers etc - we must have someone who has the proper knowledge to make the ultimate decision.
If they want to save money so bad, they can start by firing the person that is paid to browse facebook.
As someone who has known several people with depression and bipolar disorder I'd like call bullshit on your kneejerk "FRAUD!" conclusion.
Most people with depression can be just fine for an hour or two and then spend a long time not even leaving their bed, those who are bipolar can be even worse, they'll be at a party having a blast and in just a few minutes they'll switch over to seriously contemplating suicide right then and there.
And even discounting this and trying to look happy for everyone else's sake there's also the fact that a lot depressed people do seem to really value those times when they can shake their depression for a few minutes or hours, and guess which image of themselves they'd rather show friends and family...
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Yeah, because the World Health Organization bases its studies on opinion. *snark*
Besides, you're saying that because US citizens have a slightly higher chance of surviving cancer, USA has the best health care system. Please excuse me if I'm not impressed.
Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
You know when the most dangerous time is for someone who has suicidal tendencies. It's when they cheer up - it might mean that they've made the final decision to end it all. They'll be happy, smiling, giving away their stuff, party-party-party - and then they kill themselves.
Not only can you not diagnose whether someone's suffering from depression (it's NOT "gee, I'm depressed") by just looking at pictures - it's actually against the shrinks' professional code here in Quebec to proffer a diagnosis or ANY opinion without actually having examined the patient.
The proper course for the insurance company would have been to get a second opinion.
It's the insurance company's job to pay out claims. Period. End of story.
That is what they exist for.
If they don't pay claims then they might as well be all arrested for fraud.
They do their best to avoid paying claims even when there aren't people around willing to make excuses for them.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The problem is that doctors are rather incented to declare people sick, so insurers will pay them.
This. This is what is wrong with US health care. The only incentive doctors should have to declare people sick is that the people are sick. If your system is designed to encourage anything else then it's broken by definition.
I have a few friends who suffer, and if they were not receiving medication and therapy, they would never have the will to see daylight, let alone accomplish anything
I'm not biting the bullet by myself. Wellbutrin is the greatest thing ever invented and I've got no problem writing out the 2 cents per paycheck to the FEds or my insurance so that people that need psych meds can get them. Without meds, its just aweful.
If you really are on Wellbutrin as you claim then maybe you understand how complex and time-consuming it is to find the correct medicine and dosage for illnesses like depression. Based on your comments, I'm not inclined to believe that you are - and if you are, perhaps it isn't the correct medication for you. Lack of empathy doesn't really fall into the depression spectrum, it's more like borderline or even paranoid personality disorders.
If you had a deeper understanding of mental illness, you would probably have some compassion for people who struggle for years after seeking treatment to have some positive results, and many others that find testing med after med leads to disaster as often as improvement.
If you are satisfied with taking your pill and feel that is all that your illness requires, I strongly suggest you consider a more complete treatment program that includes weekly therapy sessions with someone that isn't a psychiatrist. Perhaps you will gain some coping mechanisms to deal with the issues that a pill will never solve.
Good day, sir.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
So..., you're saying that some kind of evil bureaucracy is being allowed to get between a patient and his or her doctor? And meddle in the healthcare decisions that are made by patient and doctor? Why, that's scandalous! We should protest such bureaucratic meddling and demand that our rights as patients be protected from same.
Oh, wait...
This particular story is out of Canada, different health-care system, different incentives.
But... but... I've been reading Slashdot for years - so I know this sort of thing only happens in America! The rest of the world is run by virtuous, thoughtful, caring, intelligent individuals who act only in their population's best interests!
#DeleteChrome
This particular story is out of Canada, different health-care system, different incentives.
Yes, but this sort of insurance is PRIVATE INSURANCE. Were it covered under the Universal health care, it would not be an issue. A private company has a profit motive, and therefore usually tries to come up with ways to DENY CLAIMS. Now, perhaps this is a wrong instance, perhaps it is a right instance... I'm not informed enough to know.
But certainly, a fraud claim under the public system would require much more evidence than just "we saw some pictures of her smiling." This is more like the guy claiming he couldn't work cuz he has a bad back, and then people seeing him building a house (god I've seen this at last 3 times, fucking scammers). Those people need to be OUTED big time, because we are paying for those pricks to collect $$$ for nothing; and worse, they then work under the table on side jobs and pay no taxes BACK into the system!!!
Manulife is acting EXACTLY like the US health care system. EXACTLY.
You're hilarious. Are you the kind of libertarian who wants just enough government to protect the rich from everyone else? Good luck with that.
Private health care works great in the US, don't it? Where you have the least efficient health care system in the developed world. By a factor of two. No really. Basically you have the private sector insurance companies who spend 40-60 percent of their revenues on denying claims. How is that a good thing? Insurance companies can get away with this because when it comes to their health, people get desperate. So basically, left without regulation, the insurance companies can deny you services that you've already paid for. How is even less regulation going to fix this?
The only part of your health care system that works reasonably well is Medicare. You know about Medicare, right? That government-funded insurance that pays for people who can't get insurance elsewhere?
The fact is, the numbers just don't bear out the libertarian position when it comes to health care. The US spends $6000/person/year on health care, and 45 Million people go uncovered by insurance. The next best developed nation spends $3000/person/year, and has coverage for everyone. And for this horrible value, the US has one of the sickest populations in the developed world. Not exactly getting your money's worth, are you?
Basically, your libertarian argument comes down to this: you want to live in a well-functioning, healthy society, but you don't want to pay for it. Well guess what, that doesn't work. When the poorest people get healthier, everyone benefits. That's why things like healthcare, education, public works, etc are worth paying taxes for, to make life better for everyone. But you guys are too selfish to see that.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.