Wolfe
Member
Or maybe any of your many assumptions are wrong.
Naaahhhhhhhhh, that would like, require humility and shit.
Or maybe any of your many assumptions are wrong.
Wait, she only has to try to sue, right? Like, the health insurance company has to foot the bill now, right?
no, the kid losing would incur liability which then the insurance company would cover.
The jury determined no liability, thus they don't have to pay
If she needed orthopedic surgery and the hospital was charging "insurance is going to pay for this" prices, does that number seem that outlandish?
I'm pretty sure she was trying to get "pain and suffering" covered as well as part of that sum. Medical should have covered the medical expenses if that's all she cared about.
no, the kid losing would incur liability which then the insurance company would cover.
The jury determined no liability, thus they don't have to pay
That's some shit health insurance. Why even pay into it if they expect someone else to foot the bill anyway?
Nobody here knows that her health insurance, assuming she had it, didn't cover the parts of her medical care that they were contractually required to. In fact, because she didn't sue an insurance company, it's a logical assumption that she either (1) doesn't have an insurance company (less likely) or (2) has an insurance company and they paid what they were supposed to.That's some shit health insurance. Why even pay into it if they expect someone else to foot the bill anyway?
Sue her own damn insurer, the one she pays every month, the one she signed a contract with. If her health insurance really believed the kid was negligent they should have paid first and then sued the kid themselves to get their money back. That's how it's supposed to work anyway. I don't know what her health insurance policy says but I doubt it requires every single claimant to proceed to a trial on the merits before they get paid for any injury that occurs outside their own house.
Exactly. This whole story stinks. I'd really like to see the bills and whether her insurance paid anything or not.
If she has insurance that has partially paid for her medical expenses, then absolutely.Uh...you think she's including medical expenses in her suit that were already paid?
If she has insurance that has partially paid for her medical expenses, then absolutely.
I thought he meant to imply that maybe her insurance covered everything and now she's going after the kid and claiming they didn't cover anything.
The overall point being that the $127,000 is surely more than just medical bills and that amount shouldn't be used to frame it as evil health insurance.
Exactly. This whole story stinks. I'd really like to see the bills and whether her insurance paid anything or not.
I've had health insurance try to pull this on me before. When I had surgery for my thyroid cancer, they called and asked if I was in a car accident. Their goal was to find anyone who could possibly be responsible for my surgery, then tell me that they weren't going to pay because I had to get it from the other insurance company. The likely series of events here:
a) Woman gets hurt at party, gets care
b) Woman's health insurance company calls to ask how the injury occurred. She naively tells them about it happening at a party at someone else's home. This triggers their "someone else is liable, we won't pay" script.
c) Woman is informed that she must seek payment from the other family's homeowners insurance. Furthermore, she must exhaust all avenues towards getting that payment. If she is found to have not made all good-faith effort, including a lawsuit, to get the money, they are not contractually obligated to pay her.
d) Woman is conflicted about this, almost runs out the statute of limitations on the lawsuit before folding.
e) Woman loses lawsuit. Now her health insurance is contractually obligated to pay since she has exhausted all legal avenues to get the money from the homeowner's insurance.
Again, they tried this when I had cancer. Your medical expenses go over a certain dollar amount and it pings the system and they assign a caseworker to find any possible way to keep from paying out. They are legally allowed to follow the above set of requirements to try to keep from paying out.
You even acknowledge that you've been through the same type of bullshit but still want to neg on the woman for doing what insurance companies forced her to do?
This is gold.
It's messed up here, insurance wise. I had a room mate once who had to sue her parents for a broken wrist. She tripped on a broken step. She didn't have medical insurance (hence 2 room-mates) , and neither she or her parents could afford the hospital bills.
Homeowner's insurance settled up quickly, once it was obvious she was only trying to get coverage, and not settlement.
Sounds like an experience I had recently. My father lost his balance walking down some steps and I broke one of my fingers helping him. Insurance company tried multiple times to get me to sue him. Three months later and I'm still dealing with it.
I've had health insurance try to pull this on me before. When I had surgery for my thyroid cancer, they called and asked if I was in a car accident. Their goal was to find anyone who could possibly be responsible for my surgery, then tell me that they weren't going to pay because I had to get it from the other insurance company.
...
Again, they tried this when I had cancer. Your medical expenses go over a certain dollar amount and it pings the system and they assign a caseworker to find any possible way to keep from paying out. They are legally allowed to follow the above set of requirements to try to keep from paying out.
It was a giveaway to the health insurance cartel, a way to guarantee them more customers under the guise of tough reform.Wasn't healthcare reform supposed to stop this inhumanely abusive shit? Why is this still a norm only in America?