CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Girl Who Died, Denied a Transplant

global-bma.com is hiring Agents worldwide right now, however, you most be vest in Real Estate, and maybe nobody's gonna have any insurance prob

the Messiah wrote:

<quoted text>
When your child's life is on the line and UCLA has a history of performing surgery/trasnsplants at no cost, WHY WOULD YOU WAIT?
Why wouldn't you simply do whatever it took, 2nd mortgage, 2nd job, 3rd job, to try & save her life?
The fact remains that these idiots didn't even apply for the insurance to pay for the transplant until a few weeks before she died. HOW STUPID.

Nice that you've tried to spin what you're actually saying into an attempt to make it look like you actually have a soul and would have done the right thing with regards to their daughter.

The problem is that you keep referring to incidents that never actually took place so, yeah, doesn't quite work.

I applaud your attempt, filled with fail though it may be...

Okuba_Toshimichi wrote:

<quoted text>
You are splitting hairs with this argument.
The basic fact remains that the daughter DIED because CIGNA would not pay for the treatment and care she desperately needed and a CIGNA employee totally and completely (and I hate this word) DISRESPECTED her and her family by flipping them off. I hope that the SOB lost his job and his health insurance for that little act. It would have been the least appropriate punishment.

Sorry but:

1- UCLA performs free ones all the time. How did this not qualify in their given their publicity and lack of time?

2- Parents were sure eager to blame someone else for waiting for basically the last minute in business terms before even applying to the transplant.

3- Any other parent would have simply said, perform the surgery and we'll duke it out over who pays later.

4- Flipping someone off for unknown reasons? Puh-lease.

now you just pucker up wrote:

<quoted text>
This is not a fake story. The video was on international news. Sorry if you did not see it,but I did with my own eyes.

The story isn't fake but the conclusion & implied blame was.

now you just pucker up wrote:

<quoted text>
The she would have been pushed to the front of the line for transplant.

Organs aren't lasting for weeks waiting for Approval. Insurance Companies CANNOT Stop a Surgery. Only refuse to pay. They had a donor and should have acted regardless of the insurance battle.

now you just pucker up wrote:

<quoted text>
If she could not cover the cost, The liver would have gone to next person on the list. She did not need a whole liver. 1/3 to 1/2 would have been enough to allow this girl to live. Even her parents could have been living donors, barring any illness. The liver transplant issues don't just stop after surgery. They continue on for the rest of the life of the patient.

1- I believe they claimed the parents were not a match.
2- If UCLA Dr's knew time was that critical, WHY didn't they perform the surgery at no cost or dicsount like they have a history of doing for high profile cases?

now you just pucker up wrote:

<quoted text>
The have to take many very expensive drugs
To call a procedure that has had years of a proven track record, experimental is nonsense! The same thing is done with kidney transplants and even some medical procedures that are considered the gold standard for treatment. With a fulminating liver disease, hours, not days matter. She lost 240hrs.

Insurance Companies CANNOT Stop a Surgery. Only refuse to pay. They had a donor and should have acted regardless of the insurance battle. I would have.

now you just pucker up wrote:

<quoted text> Her family probable paid a hell of a lot into the system than they were asking back, only to get a no in case that did not have time on its side.
L.L., you see, even 10 days was too long in a case like this. They could have reviewed the case in 24 under emergency conditions.

1- I believe they claimed the parents were not a match.
2- 2 weeks for approval isn't abnormal when they submitted it so late into her illness.
3- If UCLA Dr's knew time was that critical, WHY didn't they perform the surgery at no cost or dicsount like they have a history of doing for high profile cases?

the Messiah wrote:

<quoted text>
Great Post. UCLA WAS TOO CHEAP TO PERFORM THE SURGERY AND LET HER DIE.

Exactly. Parents screwed up too. Notice how they had Garagos all lined up before she even died!

This sounds like an Ambulance Chasing family.

the Messiah wrote:

<quoted text>
WISE UP.
YOU GET THE SURGERY DONE AND WORRY ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR IT LATER.
UCLA and HER PARENTS ARE AT FAULT.

Bingo!

You're not getting any sympathy from me if you insist on blaming the parents.

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Bingo!

"Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in one package; how convenient."

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Organs aren't lasting for weeks waiting for Approval. Insurance Companies CANNOT Stop a Surgery. Only refuse to pay. They had a donor and should have acted regardless of the insurance battle.
<quoted text>
1- I believe they claimed the parents were not a match.
2- If UCLA Dr's knew time was that critical, WHY didn't they perform the surgery at no cost or dicsount like they have a history of doing for high profile cases?
<quoted text>
Insurance Companies CANNOT Stop a Surgery. Only refuse to pay. They had a donor and should have acted regardless of the insurance battle. I would have.
<quoted text>
1- I believe they claimed the parents were not a match.
2- 2 weeks for approval isn't abnormal when they submitted it so late into her illness.
3- If UCLA Dr's knew time was that critical, WHY didn't they perform the surgery at no cost or dicsount like they have a history of doing for high profile cases?

You are right, organs don't last for weeks, if it came from a dead donor, they may hang out for 8-12 hours. Barring a living donor, time was against them, as I said in my first statement.
The family may have asked for the sugery. I am betting that like most of us they said, can you do the surgery and we get the money later? Is it poss. that the company had a history of denying payments after giving autherization? Not an un heard thing of by insurance companies.
The parents only requirement would have been the fact that they needed to be in excellent health. They would have been candidates if at least one of them could have been at home and healthy to care for the other kids.
The hospital, especially in CA, could not afford such an expensive surgery that they would have had to spend a lot of time trying to get the money back on.
I assure you, there are emergency approval procedures set up in major insurance companies that can be put into play. I am betting that not only did the hospital case manager call, but I would bet that the Doctor made a personal call too, as they normally do in a case like this. He/she may have even requested to speak to another doctor.
This is about peoples lives! There should have been no games being played by the insurance company. This child is dead, but her family is left behind to try to piece together what happened and what should have happened.
You seem to spend a lot of time blaming everybody, but the insurance company that told them that they covered their healthcare needs when they signed up to pay their bill.

the Messiah wrote:

<quoted text>
Great Post. UCLA WAS TOO CHEAP TO PERFORM THE SURGERY AND LET HER DIE.

That's a fair conclusion, IMO.

Michael Allred wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice that you've tried to spin what you're actually saying into an attempt to make it look like you actually have a soul and would have done the right thing with regards to their daughter.
The problem is that you keep referring to incidents that never actually took place so, yeah, doesn't quite work.
I applaud your attempt, filled with fail though it may be...

Why do you attempt these lies? Why didn't you read the Forbe's expose' on this instead of taking the word from a "blog"?

You must be really dumb.

UCLA performs free surgeries/transplants but in this public case chose not to. WHY?

Why did the parents wait until the proverbial last minute to request insurance financing?

I suggest you read the full story Forbes linked above before making yourself look even dumber...

saad wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you sleep at night?

I read the full story at Forbe's and know that anything john edwards used in the campaign as a prop turned out to be phony just like him.

Knowledge is power. Power to overcome idiots that fail to read the story and find out the facts instead of believing a blog.

the Messiah wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you attempt these lies? Why didn't you read the Forbe's expose' on this instead of taking the word from a "blog"?
You must be really dumb.
UCLA performs free surgeries/transplants but in this public case chose not to. WHY?
Why did the parents wait until the proverbial last minute to request insurance financing?
I suggest you read the full story Forbes linked above before making yourself look even dumber...

Wow, I think you actually believe in the alternate reality to which you keep referring. I hope that there are medications that you can take that would help you recover from the mental break.

On the other hand, you might want to seek out some sort of rehabilitation. You are obviously suffering from a learning disability in which you read one thing and yet process it as the complete opposite.

In any case, you really need to seek help to deal with this as as it stands, you're merely presenting yourself as a severe sociopath who may be a danger to himself and others.