Contributors

Thursday, December 30, 2010

An Actual Death Panel

On December 20, 2007, a 17 year old girl named Nataline Sarkisyan died after a three year struggle with leukemia. Cigna, the insurance company that covered her, refused to provide coverage for the liver transplant that she needed to live. They did, however, provide the same amount of money for an "Investor Day" meeting to announce their earnings just a few days before Nataline died.

Soon after that time, a gentlemen by the name of Wendell Potter, Cigna's VP of Corporate Communications, left Cigna after it became clear to him that the company wanted him to wage a spin campaign to make it look like they didn't essentially kill Nataline. He couldn't take it any more. And now he has book out about the entire experience. A book, incidentally, that answers (again) how private corporations harm people or, in this case, kill them.

Generally, there are two parts to the strategy. One is what they’re doing publicly, what you can see. The other is what they’re doing behind the scenes — working with PR firms like APCO and through the think tanks.

They approach this very strategically. It’s important to note that the committee that I was on for quite a while, the Strategic Communications Committee, they’ve been working on this for a long, long, time well before the elections were held in 2008. They see all these organizations as ways to communicate with public opinion.

Think tanks are particularly important because they have good connections. The Heritage Foundation, CATO, the American Enterprise Institute and the Galen Institute and a few others that issue reports and commentary and people from those organizations themselves have connections to the media, can get op-eds placed in the Wall Street Journal and other places.

Insurers also work through their PR firms with T.V. producers, in particular, the conservative talk shows like Fox. They see that as a very very important place to go to get their point of view across and the producers are probably on speed dial.

Insurers also worked for a long, long, time, as I did when I was with Cigna, to develop relationships with reporters in the mainstream media. I certainly had very good relationships with reporters from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today.

It's as simple as that, folks. Even easier when the place you start from is having a large group of people that have a pathological distrust of government to help you along. So it becomes the government that has the death panels, they say, not them, knowing full well that they are the actual death panel and the government could stand in their way by actually enforcing the law. And just like that, a family who has paid their premiums and expected coverage watches a loved one die. Worse, the family is at fault, not the insurance company, and blaming the victim is the icing on the cake.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of people think it's alright to spend a quarter of million dollars on a party as opposed to saving a person's life. It makes me sick to think about it but that's our society today...driven by insatiable greed and supported by anti government fervor that enables it.

23 comments:

juris imprudent said...

So, it was Cigna that killed her, not leukemia.

I just want to be clear about that.

Of course this still doesn't answer the question about how rich people fuck you over in order to get and stay rich (or even just for fun because they are rich and can get away with it). How have you been fucked over by the rich?

Oh, and since M thinks that corporations are all to blame, and the govt is never at fault: Tuskegee and it's follow on.

Which is worst?

Haplo9 said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataline_Sarkisyan

A few things to note, because Mark never quite manages to put everything out there:
1. According to Cigna, they administer Nataline's parent's employer insurance plans. So Cigna would not have been responsible for the payout. They apparently offered to pay it out of their own pocket anyway, though the offer came too late.
2. Cigna is going to be sued. If they breached the insurance contract, they'll pay for it.

Looks like a tough story. It doesn't look particularly cut and dried as to whether Cigna should have approved the operation, because there seems to be language in the contract that doesn't cover experimental or investigative type services. So it would depend on what "experiemental" or "investigative" means. That's got courts written all over it.

Of course, Mark doesn't care about any of that stuff. He's making the moral argument:

>I'm trying to imagine what kind of people think it's alright to spend a quarter of million dollars on a party as opposed to saving a person's life.

Which is a nice sounding sentiment, but as is usual, it ignores reality. Resources are not infinite. An insurance company that pays claims based on perceived morality won't remain a company for long. If you have another system you'd prefer, you're welcome to make suggestions. They will no doubt be ungrounded from reality as well.

Damn Teabaggers said...

An insurance company that pays claims based on perceived morality won't remain a company for long.

Isn't that called a church?

GuardDuck said...

Yep, Mark says he's not a black and white thinker, yet uses as an absolute example here something that is as clear as mud.

juris imprudent said...

Oh, it just gets better. So the parents suit is blocked by - federal law - ERISA specifically. M, are you going to rant about this like you did the "accredited investor" provision in federal law?

Be sure to blame libertarians for this too, since they are the ones that argue tort law shouldn't be restricted by federal law such as this (so that corporations may actually be held accountable for their injurious actions).

More on the transplant itself. And the [unanswered] question of why UCLA Med Ctr didn't go ahead as they certainly could have. In smaller words for M and the lefties - Cigna did not block the surgery, they said they wouldn't pay for it. Who's greed was to blame for the surgery not taking place?

Speaking Truth said...

As GD said, it's as clear as mud. It does need to be settled in the courts according to law. (Not everything was thrown out due to ERISA law, just most of it.) That is the appropriate role and purpose of government.

So what will our options be when the insurer and the courts are the same organization? Courts already give cover to government wrongdoing far too often. Do you seriously expect this pattern to change when peoples' lives are directly on the line?

The whole point of a court system/arbitration is to be able to make a case to a disinterested and unbiased third-party so they can make a fair and impartial decision. Even though it doesn't always work this cleanly in practice, it still works reasonably well most of the time. But when the 2nd Party and 3rd Party become the same party, impartiality becomes next to impossible.

-just dave said...

I have a theory that has been rolling about my head…and I’m just spit balling here so bear with me.
I think that Mark secretly has a fetish. Actually, having had drinks with him upon occasion, I think I can safely state that he probably has several, but I digress. I think there is a not so standard S&M fetish (Can one really call any fetish, standard?) in play with his blog that is not physical, but of a quasi-psychological/intellectual orientation. Not content with whip and a feather, Mark appears to revel in a form of humiliation derived from publishing unusually abstract and misguided opinions that inevitably yield heaps of scorn and ridicule. A serious man would likely run and hide from such shames, but Mark not only mysteriously keeps coming back for more, but often doubles down on already preposterous positions. Now, as an Amsterdam veteran, I can testify that you traditionally have to pay extra for that kind of service, however Mark has successfully harnessed the power of the internet to fulfill his needs. And to that, I say, kudos!, kudos to you Mark, for truly inspired resourcefulness.
Happy New Year, everyone!

juris imprudent said...

(Not everything was thrown out due to ERISA law, just most of it.)

The claims actually arising out of the denial of coverage were tossed. The remaining claim was unrelated to the denial and based on an incident at Cigna corporate offices.

-just dave said...

I have a theory that has been rolling about my head…and I’m just spit balling here so bear with me.
I think that Mark secretly has a fetish. Actually, having had drinks with him upon occasion, I think I can safely state that he probably has several, but I digress. I think there is a not so standard S&M fetish (Can one really call any fetish, standard?) in play with his blog that is not physical, but of a quasi-psychological/intellectual orientation. Not content with a whip and a feather, Mark appears to revel in a form of humiliation derived from publishing unusually abstract and misguided opinions that inevitably yield heaps of scorn and ridicule. A serious man would likely run and hide from such shames, but Mark not only mysteriously keeps coming back for more, but often doubles down on already preposterous positions. Now, as an Amsterdam veteran, I can testify that you traditionally have to pay extra for that kind of service, however Mark has successfully harnessed the power of the internet to fulfill his needs. And to that, I say, kudos!, kudos to you Mark, for truly inspired resourcefulness.
Happy New Year, everyone!

-just dave said...

I have a theory that has been rolling about my head…and I’m just spit balling here so bear with me.
I think that Mark secretly has a fetish. Actually, having had drinks with him upon occasion, I think I can safely state that he probably has several, but I digress. I think there is a not so standard S&M fetish (Can one really call any fetish, standard?) in play with his blog that is not physical, but of a quasi-psychological/intellectual orientation. Not content with a whip and a feather, Mark appears to revel in a form of humiliation derived from publishing unusually abstract and misguided opinions that inevitably yield heaps of scorn and ridicule. A serious man would likely run and hide from such shames, but Mark not only mysteriously keeps coming back for more, but often doubles down on already preposterous positions. Now, as an Amsterdam veteran, I can testify that you traditionally have to pay extra for that kind of service, however Mark has successfully harnessed the power of the internet to fulfill his needs. And to that, I say, kudos!, kudos to you Mark, for truly inspired resourcefulness.
Happy New Year, everyone!

-just dave said...

I have a theory that has been rolling about my head…and I’m just spit balling here so bear with me.
I think that Mark secretly has a fetish. Actually, having had drinks with him upon occasion, I think I can safely state that he probably has several, but I digress. I think there is a not so standard S&M fetish (Can one really call any fetish, standard?) in play with his blog that is not physical, but of a quasi-psychological/intellectual orientation. Not content with a whip and a feather, Mark appears to revel in a form of humiliation derived from publishing unusually abstract and misguided opinions that inevitably yield heaps of scorn and ridicule. A serious man would likely run and hide from such shames, but Mark not only mysteriously keeps coming back for more, but often doubles down on already preposterous positions. Now, as an Amsterdam veteran, I can testify that you traditionally have to pay extra for that kind of service, however Mark has successfully harnessed the power of the internet to fulfill his needs. And to that, I say, kudos!, kudos to you Mark, for truly inspired resourcefulness.
Happy New Year, everyone!

-just dave said...

I have a theory that has been rolling about my head…and I’m just spit balling here so bear with me.
I think that Mark secretly has a fetish. Actually, having had drinks with him upon occasion, I think I can safely state that he probably has several, but I digress. I think there is a not so standard S&M fetish (Can one really call any fetish, standard?) in play with his blog that is not physical, but of a quasi-psychological/intellectual orientation. Not content with a whip and a feather, Mark appears to revel in a form of humiliation derived from publishing unusually abstract and misguided opinions that inevitably yield heaps of scorn and ridicule. A serious man would likely run and hide from such shames, but Mark not only mysteriously keeps coming back for more, but often doubles down on already preposterous positions. Now, as an Amsterdam veteran, I can testify that you traditionally have to pay extra for that kind of service, however Mark has successfully harnessed the power of the internet to fulfill his needs. And to that, I say, kudos!, kudos to you Mark, for truly inspired resourcefulness.
Happy New Year, everyone!

juris imprudent said...

Does that mean I should be wearing latex gloves when I post here?

Safe, sane and consensual - well two out of three ain't bad.

GuardDuck said...

He's not here for the hunting.

:)

juris imprudent said...

Yep, right up there with Centerpoint/RMR for failing to make the argument you thought it made M.

Anonymous said...

Let's take a look at how the Obama administration is dealing with the high cost of health care, shall we?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092410/content/01125111.guest.html

Is that how you want expensive drugs/treatments handled? Just ban them?

Mark Ward said...

So, it's still the government's fault....yawn...

This is an issue of our culture, folks. We don't value human life the way we should value it. That was the point of this post. Just as the government, through the military, protects us from threats abroad so they should protect us from this sort of thing. Cigna was clearly at fault here and this example is part of a larger problem.

And, contrary to justdave's assertions, I don't ever feel humiliated. It's easy to not feel that way when my goal isn't winning the argument. That would be the goal of some of you...who also happen to be on the right side of the aisle. I'm fairly comfortable in my ideas, opinions, views, and various notions. Insecurity is not an issue for me. But I think it's obvious that it is for some of you...hence the reason why you post here as often as you do.

It just simply won't do to have this sort of...sacrilege...left uncommented. You might (gasp!) lose the argument. Time to trot out "strawman" "genetic fallacies" illogic and irrationality again!

Anonymous said...

No. I get it, sadly. You are telling all of us that don't agree with you, that you will no longer listen to our fancy 'facts' and our fat cat 'logic'.

<>

Translate = You guys don't have the same definition of 'human life' as I do. My version of "value" is rather gray and amorphous, and quite undefinable. Since the possible definitions of "value" are infinite, I am quite sure that you are incapable of understanding MY definition of "Value".

<>

Translate= Any arguments/facts used against me are irrelevant, since I am not interested in winning the argument. I am a disinterested party, therefore my opinion is quite valuable.

From a non-often poster:

dw

ps. @just dave: Any recs. on where to stay for an Amsterdam getaway?

Anonymous said...

Apologies for not knowing html... those greater/less than symbols should contain "We don't value human life the way we should value it."
and
" It's easy to not feel [humiliated] when my goal isn't winning the argument."

dw

GuardDuck said...

Insecurity is not an issue for me.

Obvious Marxy. The lack of insecurity prevents you from self reflection and the lack of embarrassment prevents you from striving to prevent or correct errors.

It is also a symptom of your narcissism.

Speaking Truth said...

> It's easy to not feel that way when my goal isn't winning the argument.

So both sides are right! Is that what you're claiming?

Last in line said...

DW, try the Hotel Cornerhouse.

juris imprudent said...

So, it's still the government's fault....yawn...

Did someone actually say that?

Did someone even imply that?

Or is that just a voice in your head drowning out what real, live people are trying to tell you?

However, you have said rich people fuck you over to create and/or maintain their wealth. And yet you never say how that has happened to you. Nor why that apparently isn't true about Buffett, Gates or Soros.

Just as the government, through the military, protects us from threats abroad so they should protect us from this sort of thing.

Because leukemia is just like a hostile foreign entity?

Because health care/insurance is so similar to maintaining armed forces?

Yep, I can understand why you don't want to argue based on logic.