My understanding is that the reason why the death penalty is no longer on the table is because the prosecutor’s messed up. That is, because of what the lesser charges they brought were, the crime qualifies as non-violent due to a SCOTUS case the judge disagrees with, and therefore they can’t take on murder.
I can’t see that judge’s ruling surviving an appeal.
1 Like
If there’s anyone at UHC here, you might want to bring this to the attention of your corporate attorneys. (While not “NSFW”, I wouldn’t follow this link on a work computer.)
1 Like
Notable: only 1 review to get that 5-star rating, and it appears to be from someone completely detached from consequences:
1 Like
I don’t know that we have a thread for “health insurers/plan administrators do things that just look bad to normal people”, so I’ll put this here.
1 Like
What is most infuriating about this is that the insurance company was receiving all but that 5 cents of her total monthly premium from the government. So it wasn’t like they were getting nothing for the coverage that was being provided.
My question would be did the insurance company reimburse the government for the portion of the premium that they were paying when the coverage was canceled?
And isn’t the insurance company actually losing money by billing and collecting, if she paid, that 1 cent per month? They sent her a bill each month and if she had paid with her credit card they would have incurred bank fees for the transaction. So ultimately, they lose money collecting that money. But I guess they may make money if her loss ratio was too high. And especially if they manage to keep the ACA subsidy that they surely collected during the time the policy was inforce before they terminated it.