Advocates say it is discrimination and are arguing for “insurance fairness” on the grounds that people who have joints surgically replaced typically don’t face the same kinds of coverage challenges.
Not a good stance for insurers when people are already angry at them. If they were smart, they wouldn’t publish asinine things like this, but we all know how decisions are made at the top - with no regard for the people that rely on this coverage for their well being.
Not a good stance for insurers when people are already angry at them. If they were smart, they wouldn’t publish asinine things like this, but we all know how decisions are made at the top - with no regard for the people that rely on this coverage for their well being.