Immediate and Accurate Input

Your point is my point in my appeal.  One way or another they are paying for my treatment either in treating side effects or treating the disease permanently.

Unfortunately, the ins cos. don't care .. they are so shortsighted!   They just care about what they have to pay out now ..  &:-(...    I really suspect that they figure that if they don't provide the surgery than the insured will die even sooner and not cost them any more after that point  (esp. for us members of the state's "High Risk Pool") ..  It remind me of the "evil human calculus" that the Ford Motor Co. did in regard to their exploding gas tanks in the Pintos of many years back .. it was cheaper for Ford to risk the deaths and settle those claims out rather than undergo what they perceived as the greater expense of recalling and redesigning the offending gas tanks ..   I had really hoped that Michael Moore might have exposed this biz  philosophy of health ins. cos. in Sicko, but it didn't happen ..  &:-/)    Thank God a handful of states now have laws preventing the blanket exclusion for weight loss treatment ..  Some states though (including Lousiiana and Missouri) recenlty saw the initiative fail there .. Texas has been trying to get up the initiative through the actions of some of our State's bariatric surgeons, but not much luck, yet ..  I think the ins. co. lobbies here are just too poweful!   &:-/)     (btw - I woudl mention that, with some employer-sponsored group plans, an insured can get around the blanket exclusion by asking the plan administrator - usually an employee of the employer - to apply for an exception on their behalf ..  it sometimes works, esp. if the ins. co. wants to keep the employer as a "happy customer"!)