224
Her Mental Health Treatment Was Helping. That’s Why Insurance Cut Off Her Coverage.
(www.propublica.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
224 points (98.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
4245 readers
426 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules:
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
No pics of text
Memes are now allowed, as long as they're US centric, general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
Post news related to the United States.
No NYPost, Breitbart, Daily Mail, Daily Wire
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The point of the article was about how the patients in question were only doing better(ish) due to intensive help from the therapists and still needed time.
From a lay persons view “better” does not equal doesn’t need continued therapy by a long shot and I’d rather have people use more therapy than they need than the other way around due to the outsize harms of getting that decision wrong.
i pity your patients
such arrogance, such lack of self awareness or empathy. such projection. read the room clown. "i know this will be unpopular" isn't a magic phrase that will make the unsupported things you say in direct contradiction to our lived experiences as patients and insurance subjects somehow valid. blackstone's reasoning applies here. at least to us as patients... i guess you dont have something comparable in an oath.
I'm tempted to say some uncharitable things about the reputational damage your statements tend to do to your profession, but i would just be rehashing the comments you've made, and i think people already get the gist.
I know trying to have a rational discussion about policy on lemmy is as likely as having one on Truth Social, but I got irritated enough to engage. That was dumb of me. I'm done
as far as i can tell the closest you got to a "rational discussion" was us rationally rejecting your argument by mere assertion. you dont have to be done. you could try like defending your opinion if you have the evidence for it. where are the statistics that support your claim that insurance denials are the right call 99.9% of the time, for starters?