Talk Cancer » Cancer Hospital » Unfair categorizing of cancer victims
Unfair categorizing of cancer victims
Question:
ei hi pleas i need to know if are some wery well hospital for chemic terapy PLEAS THE TIME NO WORK SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH Sorry, this policy should provide no more coverage for your loss than your automobile accident policy, and for the same reasons: The occurrence is clearly outside the defined coverage of the policy. The purpose of insurance is to share risk. To be actuarially sound, the risks to be shared must be clearly defined, in advance. This policy does it well. That’s not how they described it to me when I sold MetLife. They told me that our purpose was to help decide what was adequate insurance, and to provide financial assistance in the event of a catastrophe. I believe that was the original intent of insurance companies, to help those in their time of need. Somehow it became twisted so that it can be interpreted to however they want to interpret it to their advantage. All the policy does well is ensure that they have to pay out as little as possible. Let me give you an example that I gave to a MetLife Rep and see if you come up with the same conclusion. Say a man (or woman) gets into a bad car accident and the car crushes one of their arms. The doctors fight for a couple months trying to save the arm, but unfortunately gangrene sets in and the doctors have to remove the arm to save the patient’s life. If this person had the "Loss of Limb" rider that I refer to below, would they be entitled to the benefit? . . . . . . . . If you answered "yes", you’re wrong on two counts! As explained by MetLife: 1. It was a disease (gangrene) that was the direct cause of the arm having to be amputated, not the car accident. 2. The arm was removed by a medical (surgical) procedure. If the risks to be shared are to be determined ex post facto, you’d better be prepared to contract for a flexible premium to maintain any insurance policy. Whatever. I just want it changed so that cancer victims aren’t discriminated against, plain and simple. Did you know that once you become a cancer victim you are in the same category as drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves? At least that what MetLife (and other major Insurance Companies) thinks. I had my left arm amputated at the shoulder because of cancer (synovial sarcoma) six years ago. I had (still have) a MetLife insurance policy through my employer, Eastman Kodak, which included provisions for dismemberment. I was denied the claim because "cancer is not considered to be an accident". Actually the word "accident" is defined as "an unexpected, or undesirable event". This sounds like a very accurate definition of cancer to me! According to the policy: No benefits are payable unless death or dismemberment is caused solely by an accident. The following are not considered to be "accidents" under ADI, and no benefit will be paid for death or dismemberment caused by: Your physical or mental illness; Medical treatment or procedure; A self-inflicted wound or suicide; An act of war-like action in time of peace, other than: acts of terrorism and insurrection, and incidents occurring in a geographical region designated as a "hazardous zone" by Kodak; Your misuse of any drug (including alcohol); or Your commission of a felony or other serious crime or assault, as determined by a court of law in the case of dismemberment, or by MetLife in the case of your death before a court renders a decision in your case. I do not agree that unfortunate victims of cancer should be discriminated against by being categorized with drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves. I have sent numerous letters to Support Organizations, Government Officials, etc. asking that cancer victims be allowed payment of this benefit. It’s encouraging that all opinionated replies concur totally with me, but unfortunately all they have been able to do is offer moral support. More than one voice must be heard before any change will take place. You can help by sending a message to the appropriate government official for your state. To find your Senator, go to http://www.senate.gov. Your Congressman/ Congresswoman can be found at http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm. Cancer victims are 8.2 million strong in the United States. Together we can help correct a terrible injustice. I continue to be fully employed and, God willing, will be until I am able to retire. I never have and never will ask for a "handout", I only ask for what is fair and just. I was a MetLife salesperson from 1971 – 1972, and I remember being taught that the customer was our Number One concern. I was continually reminded that our purpose was to provide adequate insurance to help plan for the future, and to provide financial assistance in the event of a catastrophe. I can think of few events more catastrophic than cancer, especially when it involves the loss of a limb. Any ideas/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Response:
If you answered "yes", you’re wrong on two counts! As explained by MetLife: 1. It was a disease (gangrene) that was the direct cause of the arm having to be amputated, not the car accident. 2. The arm was removed by a medical (surgical) procedure.
So, if you are in an accident you should tell them to amputate anything that is damaged! Phew, nice policy.
Response:
holiday insurance is cashing in as well one insurer will not insure me at all because of a pre existing medical condition, one I have found that will insure me still means if I have to cancel before the holiday they would not insure me to get my money back they also will not insure me until 3 months before I go as the risk will be less? any ideas If you answered "yes", you’re wrong on two counts! As explained by MetLife: 1. It was a disease (gangrene) that was the direct cause of the arm having
to be amputated, not the car accident. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -2. The arm was removed by a medical (surgical) procedure. So, if you are in an accident you should tell them to amputate anything that is damaged! Phew, nice policy.
Response:
ei pleas i need to know if are a good hospital for chimic terapy & other the problem is carcinoma in brain i leave in italia time is no friend TANK If you answered "yes", you’re wrong on two counts! As explained by MetLife: 1. It was a disease (gangrene) that was the direct cause of the arm having
to be amputated, not the car accident. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -2. The arm was removed by a medical (surgical) procedure. So, if you are in an accident you should tell them to amputate anything that is damaged! Phew, nice policy.
Response:
Sorry, this policy should provide no more coverage for your loss than your automobile accident policy, and for the same reasons: The occurrence is clearly outside the defined coverage of the policy. The purpose of insurance is to share risk. To be actuarially sound, the risks to be shared must be clearly defined, in advance. This policy does it well.
That’s not how they described it to me when I sold MetLife. They told me that our purpose was to help decide what was adequate insurance, and to provide financial assistance in the event of a catastrophe. I believe that was the original intent of insurance companies, to help those in their time of need. Somehow it became twisted so that it can be interpreted to however they want to interpret it to their advantage. All the policy does well is ensure that they have to pay out as little as possible. Let me give you an example that I gave to a MetLife Rep and see if you come up with the same conclusion. Say a man (or woman) gets into a bad car accident and the car crushes one of their arms. The doctors fight for a couple months trying to save the arm, but unfortunately gangrene sets in and the doctors have to remove the arm to save the patient’s life. If this person had the "Loss of Limb" rider that I refer to below, would they be entitled to the benefit? . . . . . . . . If you answered "yes", you’re wrong on two counts! As explained by MetLife: 1. It was a disease (gangrene) that was the direct cause of the arm having to be amputated, not the car accident. 2. The arm was removed by a medical (surgical) procedure. If the risks to be shared are to be determined ex post facto, you’d better be prepared to contract for a flexible premium to maintain any insurance policy.
Whatever. I just want it changed so that cancer victims aren’t discriminated against, plain and simple. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did you know that once you become a cancer victim you are in the same category as drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves? At least that what MetLife (and other major Insurance Companies) thinks. I had my left arm amputated at the shoulder because of cancer (synovial sarcoma) six years ago. I had (still have) a MetLife insurance policy through my employer, Eastman Kodak, which included provisions for dismemberment. I was denied the claim because "cancer is not considered to be an accident". Actually the word "accident" is defined as "an unexpected, or undesirable event". This sounds like a very accurate definition of cancer to me! According to the policy: No benefits are payable unless death or dismemberment is caused solely by an accident. The following are not considered to be "accidents" under ADI, and no benefit will be paid for death or dismemberment caused by: Your physical or mental illness; Medical treatment or procedure; A self-inflicted wound or suicide; An act of war-like action in time of peace, other than: acts of terrorism and insurrection, and incidents occurring in a geographical region designated as a "hazardous zone" by Kodak; Your misuse of any drug (including alcohol); or Your commission of a felony or other serious crime or assault, as determined by a court of law in the case of dismemberment, or by MetLife in the case of your death before a court renders a decision in your case. I do not agree that unfortunate victims of cancer should be discriminated against by being categorized with drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves. I have sent numerous letters to Support Organizations, Government Officials, etc. asking that cancer victims be allowed payment of this benefit. It’s encouraging that all opinionated replies concur totally with me, but unfortunately all they have been able to do is offer moral support. More than one voice must be heard before any change will take place. You can help by sending a message to the appropriate government official for your state. To find your Senator, go to http://www.senate.gov. Your Congressman/ Congresswoman can be found at http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm. Cancer victims are 8.2 million strong in the United States. Together we can help correct a terrible injustice. I continue to be fully employed and, God willing, will be until I am able to retire. I never have and never will ask for a "handout", I only ask for what is fair and just. I was a MetLife salesperson from 1971 – 1972, and I remember being taught that the customer was our Number One concern. I was continually reminded that our purpose was to provide adequate insurance to help plan for the future, and to provide financial assistance in the event of a catastrophe. I can think of few events more catastrophic than cancer, especially when it involves the loss of a limb. Any ideas/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Response:
Sorry, this policy should provide no more coverage for your loss than your automobile accident policy, and for the same reasons: The occurrence is clearly outside the defined coverage of the policy. The purpose of insurance is to share risk. To be actuarially sound, the risks to be shared must be clearly defined, in advance. This policy does it well. If the risks to be shared are to be determined ex post facto, you’d better be prepared to contract for a flexible premium to maintain any insurance policy.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Did you know that once you become a cancer victim you are in the same category as drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves? At least that what MetLife (and other major Insurance Companies) thinks. I had my left arm amputated at the shoulder because of cancer (synovial sarcoma) six years ago. I had (still have) a MetLife insurance policy through my employer, Eastman Kodak, which included provisions for dismemberment. I was denied the claim because "cancer is not considered to be an accident". Actually the word "accident" is defined as "an unexpected, or undesirable event". This sounds like a very accurate definition of cancer to me! According to the policy: No benefits are payable unless death or dismemberment is caused solely by an accident. The following are not considered to be "accidents" under ADI, and no benefit will be paid for death or dismemberment caused by: Your physical or mental illness; Medical treatment or procedure; A self-inflicted wound or suicide; An act of war-like action in time of peace, other than: acts of terrorism and insurrection, and incidents occurring in a geographical region designated as a "hazardous zone" by Kodak; Your misuse of any drug (including alcohol); or Your commission of a felony or other serious crime or assault, as determined by a court of law in the case of dismemberment, or by MetLife in the case of your death before a court renders a decision in your case. I do not agree that unfortunate victims of cancer should be discriminated against by being categorized with drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves. I have sent numerous letters to Support Organizations, Government Officials, etc. asking that cancer victims be allowed payment of this benefit. It’s encouraging that all opinionated replies concur totally with me, but unfortunately all they have been able to do is offer moral support. More than one voice must be heard before any change will take place. You can help by sending a message to the appropriate government official for your state. To find your Senator, go to http:/www.senate.gov. Your Congressman/ Congresswoman can be found at http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm. Cancer victims are 8.2 million strong in the United States. Together we can help correct a terrible injustice. I continue to be fully employed and, God willing, will be until I am able to retire. I never have and never will ask for a "handout", I only ask for what is fair and just. I was a MetLife salesperson from 1971 – 1972, and I remember being taught that the customer was our Number One concern. I was continually reminded that our purpose was to provide adequate insurance to help plan for the future, and to provide financial assistance in the event of a catastrophe. I can think of few events more catastrophic than cancer, especially when it involves the loss of a limb. Any ideas/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Response:
Did you know that once you become a cancer victim you are in the same category as drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves? At least that what MetLife (and other major Insurance Companies) thinks. I had my left arm amputated at the shoulder because of cancer (synovial sarcoma) six years ago. I had (still have) a MetLife insurance policy through my employer, Eastman Kodak, which included provisions for dismemberment. I was denied the claim because "cancer is not considered to be an accident". Actually the word "accident" is defined as "an unexpected, or undesirable event". This sounds like a very accurate definition of cancer to me! According to the policy: No benefits are payable unless death or dismemberment is caused solely by an accident. The following are not considered to be "accidents" under ADI, and no benefit will be paid for death or dismemberment caused by: Your physical or mental illness; Medical treatment or procedure; A self-inflicted wound or suicide; An act of war-like action in time of peace, other than: acts of terrorism and insurrection, and incidents occurring in a geographical region designated as a "hazardous zone" by Kodak; Your misuse of any drug (including alcohol); or Your commission of a felony or other serious crime or assault, as determined by a court of law in the case of dismemberment, or by MetLife in the case of your death before a court renders a decision in your case. I do not agree that unfortunate victims of cancer should be discriminated against by being categorized with drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, or those who have suicidal tendencies and would purposely inflict damage upon themselves. I have sent numerous letters to Support Organizations, Government Officials, etc. asking that cancer victims be allowed payment of this benefit. It’s encouraging that all opinionated replies concur totally with me, but unfortunately all they have been able to do is offer moral support. More than one voice must be heard before any change will take place. You can help by sending a message to the appropriate government official for your state. To find your Senator, go to http:/www.senate.gov. Your Congressman/ Congresswoman can be found at http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm. Cancer victims are 8.2 million strong in the United States. Together we can help correct a terrible injustice. I continue to be fully employed and, God willing, will be until I am able to retire. I never have and never will ask for a "handout", I only ask for what is fair and just. I was a MetLife salesperson from 1971 – 1972, and I remember being taught that the customer was our Number One concern. I was continually reminded that our purpose was to provide adequate insurance to help plan for the future, and to provide financial assistance in the event of a catastrophe. I can think of few events more catastrophic than cancer, especially when it involves the loss of a limb. Any ideas/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration.