Comments on: John Edwards, Nataline, and CIGNA: Matthew Holt is Spot-On

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:10:00 +0000

No one should have ever taken Edwards proposals for universal coverage seriously. What do he or his multimillionaire backers have to gain from that system? I’m sure they are quite happy with current affairs as no successfully functioning national or universal access system tolerates the tort exposure that is the norm in this country. It is unsustainable for the single payor or the govt. Anyway, who would the trial lawyers rather go up against – an liability insurer or the Federal Tort Claims Act? Any suggestion of universal coverage by Edwards was a crock from the start – he and his buddies get rich on the status quo.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:04:00 +0000

John Edwards dragged the sexuality of VP Cheney’s daughter into a debate. Of course he’s slimy enough to bring up Nataline Sarkisyan. Craven amorality is the very essence of the trial bar.

By: GingerB

GingerB — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:21:00 +0000

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Edwards will be out of the public eye after early February.

Stances like this leave me further convinced that he’s all you’d expect from a trial lawyer and I don’t want him for President.

By: Elliott

Elliott — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:00:00 +0000

Global warming is no doubt a thing of the past. As the cold slowly rises from the netherworld, we all better be prepared for some frosty times. I agree with Kevin; the furnaces of Hades are certainly on the fritz.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:06:00 +0000

This is not surprising. This is from the same guy that talks to dead babies and said that people like Christopher Reeve would be walking if he and John Kerry would have been elected.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:35:00 +0000

But a government gnome wouldn't have the guts to say no directly. Rather they will outsource it behind so many layers of contracts that the ultimate decision maker would be unaccountable.

Or they would strangle down payment for the procedure so much that few can afford to provide the service.

With the same end result of course.

By: NH Mind

NH Mind — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:39:00 +0000

It’s unfortunate that so many believe that universal health insurance, administered by the the government means you get everything you want, whenever you want. If Cigna is bad, we will all learn quite quickly that Edward’s types of solutions are the devil incarnate. Concerned about being denied today….just wait until you have to go up against Uncle Sam to get these types of authorizations. Even the legit ones will have patients dying, while the faceless, cash strapped bureaucracy churns.

By: Doc99

Doc99 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:35:00 +0000

The more you learn of the specifics of this case, the more you feel obliged to disagree with CIGNA. I don’t object to CIGNA’s denial of what most likely would have been a fruitless procedure. I object to their not keeping a principled stance and caving to public opinion. I have issues with managed care but this is not the battle you really want to fight. Sometimes you need to remember Rogers Rule: Know when to hold ‘em. Know when to fold ‘em.

By: jimmy

jimmy — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:43:00 +0000

This is a sad case but under pressure the insurance company did finally give-in(although too late). Also I would expect that litigation will follow. Do you think that under a government run universal system that the nameless, faceless government bean-counter will give-in to you when you are the one asking for the procedure? Do you believe that if this young women had been denied by such a system that she would have any realistic opportunity to bring the case to litigation and win? If you are on medicare and they refuse to pay for a treatment or procedure can you protest and put enough pressure on them to change their mind? We should all consider this. Be careful what you ask for.