Keep in mind that this is a Canadian woman, so her insurance is going to look different than what you're used to. She's being insured privately for the time she misses from work, not for the treatment of the depression. The depression treatment is covered under her provincial health care. Here in Ontario that would mean she's covered for her doctor's appointments, regular appointments with a psychiatrist, access to free counseling if she's near a Community Mental Health Centre, and if she can't afford her meds there's a public drug plan with a $200/year deductible. I would imagine that Quebec's health coverage is better than Ontario's, and she might get her drugs covered %100 there.
The private insurer (depending on what kind of insurance it is) would cover a percentage of her lost income, travel to and from medical appointments as needed including travel to out-of-town clinics or treatment centres, etc.
As for whose call it is, you're right. Generally the Insurance companies won't cut payments unless the patient has been non-compliant with treatment or they have a doctor's opinion supporting their position that she's better/should be better/faking. In this instance (I guess, I haven't RTFA) either they have other evidence or their jumping the gun.
Chronic pain syndromes exist where there is no evident neurological or musculoskeletal reason for the pain. A Chronic Pain Disorder is a mental illness, generally secondary to depression.
I have some experience working with Insurance companies (in Ontario), and I can say that usually, if they're paying out on a depression claim, they do so with a certain amount of good grace, up to a point. If treatment goes on longer than, say two years, the company is going to get suspicious and nosy, on the grounds that after two years the patient should have found a treatment that works and be on the road to recovery. Depression is a treatable illness.
This woman will either have an option to appeal the insurance company's decision, or sue them for the money. If all the company has is a few Facebook photos, they're not going to get very far against her. If, on the other hand, she's been depressed for 3 or 4 years, has been treated by her doctor and seeing a psychologist and psychiatrist for all those years, and she's still not better, they'll have a somewhat stronger case.
Insurance companies hiring private investigators to spy on their clients is fairly common in Canada, where the payout looks like it's going to be long-term or the client seems a little suspicious. It's kind of a "dirty tricks" thing to do, but it's not entirely unjustified, depending on the illness, and the circumstances. For example, since we brought in contingency fee arrangements, auto insurance lawsuits have increased dramatically, and claims for things like chronic pain syndromes and whiplash are skyrocketing. One reason Insurance companies pay for surveillance (and they do pay, it's not cheap) is that they often do catch people faking illness or injury.
The irony is, of course, that depression is not one of the illnesses that people are likely to fake. There's still a strong stigma around mental illness here in Canada (and the US as I'm sure you can tell from the comments here) and people will go out of their way to avoid being diagnosed with depression or any other mental illness. To further compound the irony, the "chronic pain syndromes"* that so many people suffer from are quite often symptoms of depression. But the sufferer refuses to acknowledge even being depressed, so the doctors are limited to treating the symptoms (and eventually enabling an oxycontin habit).
My experience with Insurance companies has been that most of them will pay out on medically supported depression claims for a certain amount of time (probably up to 2 years) and after that time they'll start snooping on the client; the rationale being that after two years, the client should have found a treatment that works.
MMS is garbage. It was a way for cell carriers to charge extortionate rates to teenagers so they can send around shitty photos on their parents' dime. In all the cell phones I've owned, the one feature I would never have missed is MMS. If I had an iPhone, I wouldn't send a pic via MMS at $1.50 or whatever it is a pop, when I can attach the pic to an e-mail in my favourite webmail and send it for basically nothing.
Well, first of all, maybe he did. Were you there? Can you give us an eye-witness account? No?
And second of all, it doesn't matter. What's he going to do, sue? Resigning, even under some pressure from the boss, is tantamount to admitting guilt (or liability, if you like). He's hosed.
Just like GIMP is that sub/dom mask thing and not "GNU Image Manipulation Program" and the reason why people don't want GIMP ('cos it's all about pervy sex).
And all this time I thought that was a selling feature.
Regardless of what "boycott" denotes, there is a common connotation of that word that implies the boycotter is taking a moral position. You may or may not eat sweets or candy or what have you, but when someone says they're "boycotting Nestle" they don't mean that they're just not eating their products, that person means that Nestle is evil and they won't get any of that person's money until Nestle stops being evil.
Your argument with regard to the cost of entertainment is only true so far as the price of the entertainment is artificially propped up: RIAA-affiliate record companies = gross market distortion, while a band selling their own concert tickets probably represents the least distortion. Pro sports falls somewhere in the middle (on the one hand, there are lots of alternatives available, while on the other, many pro sports teams are subsidized by municipal governments). Also, in the free market, prices aren't determined solely by the production cost of a product, but by the marginal cost of the product, subjective value that the buyer places on that product, and other values. Charging more than the cost of production isn't in itself interfering with the market.
The difference between these things is that when the RIAA or the NFL interferes with the markets, the only people who win are the RIAA or the NFL. When governments interfere with the markets with social programs, everyone wins (well, everyone is supposed to win). So for example your taxes may go up because of the cost of public education, you benefit because you live and work in a society with better-educated and more productive people.
But folks act like the right to entertainment is more valuable than the right to education, despite the fact that no great harm will come if you can't get free music or cheap football tickets. If interfering with the market will bring down the price of a ticket, they're all for it (see the above-mentioned arena subsidies). My point was that people will encourage interference in a market if it means they get cheap tickets, but not if it means that the people around them will be better-educated, or healthier, or less likely to commit crimes. It's not libertarianism itself that's bothering me, but people who claim to be libertarians, but also seem to want to socialize football, or music concerts.
Anyway, again, I have to reiterate that this doesn't apply to you, you just happened be the recipient of my venting. Sorry.
Boycott? Really? I just don't buy tickets. The essential difference being that I don't think the pro sports teams have any moral obligation to provide me with first rate entertainment.
These threads are filled with people who seem to think that they are entitled to top quality entertainment at very little or no cost. The sad thing is that many of these same people don't believe in entitlements like a living wage, a well-funded welfare system or more topically, universal health care. So why do people feel they deserve cheap concert tickets, but not a cheap place to live? Or food to eat?
Anyway, PitaBred, I'm not intending to slag your post, you've said nothing objectionable. It was just that particular word, and the tone of so many of other posts that I've read, that set me off on a rant.
Incidentally, their concerts are probably under-priced, not over-priced. Long line-ups, same-day sellouts, and scalpers are all symptoms that the seller is not charging as much as the market will bear for their tickets. You might not think the tickets, merch, etc are worth the prices they charge, but clearly other fans do, and there's no reason why the Eagles should sell you cheaper stuff when other people will happily pay more.
Bah, they don't have to beat Linus to a pulp, they just have to ask him how to install something and wait until he says "Oh, just drop to the command line..." and then they can roll around on the floor laughing.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that this is a Canadian woman, so her insurance is going to look different than what you're used to. She's being insured privately for the time she misses from work, not for the treatment of the depression. The depression treatment is covered under her provincial health care. Here in Ontario that would mean she's covered for her doctor's appointments, regular appointments with a psychiatrist, access to free counseling if she's near a Community Mental Health Centre, and if she can't afford her meds there's a public drug plan with a $200/year deductible. I would imagine that Quebec's health coverage is better than Ontario's, and she might get her drugs covered %100 there.
The private insurer (depending on what kind of insurance it is) would cover a percentage of her lost income, travel to and from medical appointments as needed including travel to out-of-town clinics or treatment centres, etc.
As for whose call it is, you're right. Generally the Insurance companies won't cut payments unless the patient has been non-compliant with treatment or they have a doctor's opinion supporting their position that she's better/should be better/faking. In this instance (I guess, I haven't RTFA) either they have other evidence or their jumping the gun.
It will trigger a law suit (but not a "major" one), if she doesn't have an option to appeal her decision.
Chronic pain syndromes exist where there is no evident neurological or musculoskeletal reason for the pain. A Chronic Pain Disorder is a mental illness, generally secondary to depression.
I have some experience working with Insurance companies (in Ontario), and I can say that usually, if they're paying out on a depression claim, they do so with a certain amount of good grace, up to a point. If treatment goes on longer than, say two years, the company is going to get suspicious and nosy, on the grounds that after two years the patient should have found a treatment that works and be on the road to recovery. Depression is a treatable illness.
This woman will either have an option to appeal the insurance company's decision, or sue them for the money. If all the company has is a few Facebook photos, they're not going to get very far against her. If, on the other hand, she's been depressed for 3 or 4 years, has been treated by her doctor and seeing a psychologist and psychiatrist for all those years, and she's still not better, they'll have a somewhat stronger case.
Not quite. As I posted to GP, dead people don't pay premiums.
But if you die, you no longer pay premiums.
Insurance companies hiring private investigators to spy on their clients is fairly common in Canada, where the payout looks like it's going to be long-term or the client seems a little suspicious. It's kind of a "dirty tricks" thing to do, but it's not entirely unjustified, depending on the illness, and the circumstances. For example, since we brought in contingency fee arrangements, auto insurance lawsuits have increased dramatically, and claims for things like chronic pain syndromes and whiplash are skyrocketing. One reason Insurance companies pay for surveillance (and they do pay, it's not cheap) is that they often do catch people faking illness or injury.
The irony is, of course, that depression is not one of the illnesses that people are likely to fake. There's still a strong stigma around mental illness here in Canada (and the US as I'm sure you can tell from the comments here) and people will go out of their way to avoid being diagnosed with depression or any other mental illness. To further compound the irony, the "chronic pain syndromes"* that so many people suffer from are quite often symptoms of depression. But the sufferer refuses to acknowledge even being depressed, so the doctors are limited to treating the symptoms (and eventually enabling an oxycontin habit).
My experience with Insurance companies has been that most of them will pay out on medically supported depression claims for a certain amount of time (probably up to 2 years) and after that time they'll start snooping on the client; the rationale being that after two years, the client should have found a treatment that works.
This particular story is out of Canada, different health-care system, different incentives.
MMS is garbage. It was a way for cell carriers to charge extortionate rates to teenagers so they can send around shitty photos on their parents' dime. In all the cell phones I've owned, the one feature I would never have missed is MMS. If I had an iPhone, I wouldn't send a pic via MMS at $1.50 or whatever it is a pop, when I can attach the pic to an e-mail in my favourite webmail and send it for basically nothing.
Information is free; eyeballs are not.
Well, first of all, maybe he did. Were you there? Can you give us an eye-witness account? No?
And second of all, it doesn't matter. What's he going to do, sue? Resigning, even under some pressure from the boss, is tantamount to admitting guilt (or liability, if you like). He's hosed.
So fart jokes aren't immature? Last I checked, that was about grade-school level on the humour meter. YMMV, of course.
Shouldn't you be in school?
... just as WordPerfect. Sure, people will use it, but maybe just to spite Adobe and Microsoft, respectively?
Ah no. Wordperfect is still the superior tool for the job. If you need the power of course.
No, you just can't read. Go back and read it again, you'll figure it out.
And what about young, succulent Toms?
The teacher resigned.
Failed, you have; to be funny.
Just like GIMP is that sub/dom mask thing and not "GNU Image Manipulation Program" and the reason why people don't want GIMP ('cos it's all about pervy sex).
And all this time I thought that was a selling feature.
I thought we were talking about nuclear energy, not methane?
Regardless of what "boycott" denotes, there is a common connotation of that word that implies the boycotter is taking a moral position. You may or may not eat sweets or candy or what have you, but when someone says they're "boycotting Nestle" they don't mean that they're just not eating their products, that person means that Nestle is evil and they won't get any of that person's money until Nestle stops being evil.
Your argument with regard to the cost of entertainment is only true so far as the price of the entertainment is artificially propped up: RIAA-affiliate record companies = gross market distortion, while a band selling their own concert tickets probably represents the least distortion. Pro sports falls somewhere in the middle (on the one hand, there are lots of alternatives available, while on the other, many pro sports teams are subsidized by municipal governments). Also, in the free market, prices aren't determined solely by the production cost of a product, but by the marginal cost of the product, subjective value that the buyer places on that product, and other values. Charging more than the cost of production isn't in itself interfering with the market.
The difference between these things is that when the RIAA or the NFL interferes with the markets, the only people who win are the RIAA or the NFL. When governments interfere with the markets with social programs, everyone wins (well, everyone is supposed to win). So for example your taxes may go up because of the cost of public education, you benefit because you live and work in a society with better-educated and more productive people.
But folks act like the right to entertainment is more valuable than the right to education, despite the fact that no great harm will come if you can't get free music or cheap football tickets. If interfering with the market will bring down the price of a ticket, they're all for it (see the above-mentioned arena subsidies). My point was that people will encourage interference in a market if it means they get cheap tickets, but not if it means that the people around them will be better-educated, or healthier, or less likely to commit crimes. It's not libertarianism itself that's bothering me, but people who claim to be libertarians, but also seem to want to socialize football, or music concerts.
Anyway, again, I have to reiterate that this doesn't apply to you, you just happened be the recipient of my venting. Sorry.
Boycott? Really? I just don't buy tickets. The essential difference being that I don't think the pro sports teams have any moral obligation to provide me with first rate entertainment.
These threads are filled with people who seem to think that they are entitled to top quality entertainment at very little or no cost. The sad thing is that many of these same people don't believe in entitlements like a living wage, a well-funded welfare system or more topically, universal health care. So why do people feel they deserve cheap concert tickets, but not a cheap place to live? Or food to eat?
Anyway, PitaBred, I'm not intending to slag your post, you've said nothing objectionable. It was just that particular word, and the tone of so many of other posts that I've read, that set me off on a rant.
Incidentally, their concerts are probably under-priced, not over-priced. Long line-ups, same-day sellouts, and scalpers are all symptoms that the seller is not charging as much as the market will bear for their tickets. You might not think the tickets, merch, etc are worth the prices they charge, but clearly other fans do, and there's no reason why the Eagles should sell you cheaper stuff when other people will happily pay more.
Bah, they don't have to beat Linus to a pulp, they just have to ask him how to install something and wait until he says "Oh, just drop to the command line..." and then they can roll around on the floor laughing.
Don't you mean Tingo Is Not GO?