A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
"Looking up and feeling the sun shining on your face is one of the simple joys in life, but Jennifer Sanders was deprived of that sensation for nearly 15 years. "
"The mom of two suffered an orbital globe rupture in her right eye in 2010. Ninety-five percent of Sanders’ iris was destroyed, half of her retina was detached and her eye lens had to be removed. She had no way of regulating how much light was getting into the back of her eye."
I don't understand this. Why wouldn't she wear a patch?
Nothing in this says she didnt or couldnt wear a patch. Journalist trying to make an emotional connection to her vision loss and then bare bones about the medical.
While she may have worn a patch, they aren't the most comfy and can get a lot of stares and questions. People are rude af to people with any noticeable abnormalities. A patch would also mean basically zero depth perception due to only having one eye seeing.
If going outside and looking up is one of my favorite things, I'll wear the patch. Also, she couldn't focus with that eye anyway (no lens, no iris), so no depth perception anyway.
Or remove the eye and go glass. Even a contact lens could be used to limit the light intake. I'm calling bullshit. Insurance companies suck, but there's more to this story than just that.
Independence Woman had me confused initially, although seemed appropriate given the whole rapey trump supporter thing of late.
I added 'Missouri' to the title to make clearer. Solid point.
Had no idea such a thing was possible!
It was a successful case that came at a cost. Sanders’ insurance covered the surgery itself, but she had pay $9,000 out of pocket for the implant. Her provider called the procedure “cosmetic.”
But god forbid the gubermint tell me what they'll cover or not.
It's not the government that tells the insurance what's cosmetic or medically necessary unless she's on Medicare or Medicaid.
Regardless, there needs to be laws that make it illegal for insurance companies to try and overrule doctors' medical diagnoses and deny coverage. I've straight up had my insurance company argue with my doctors about prescriptions before, requiring them to fill out a bunch of pre-approval forms that they have to renew every year, which then causes me to have to wait an extra few days before I can even get my meds. Luckily, my meds aren't life-or-death. Unfortunately, they pull the same shit for people needing life-or-death medications, too. It's fucking evil and I cannot comprehend how over 220 million US voters aren't rioting to get a better system.
It was a successful case that came at a cost. Sanders’ insurance covered the surgery itself, but she had pay $9,000 out of pocket for the implant. Her provider called the procedure “cosmetic.” Landreneau, who’s already planning to perform the surgery on other patients in the state, disagrees.
So giving someone their vision back is cosmetic. What the fuck, man? Insurance companies are fuckin heartless.
Take the sight of an insurance executive and call it cosmetic damage
They'll just fly to Mexico to get it fixed.
Just wait until the Trump admin gets their claws into what the differentiation means.
Fake tits = medically necessary
Vision restoration = cosmetic
Medically ~~necessary~~ mandatory with those psychos. If you don't get to control whether or not to have a child, imagine what else women will not get to choose. 18 men register for selective service, and women will select which "service" they can do for their country, Botox, perma-spraytan, or augmentation. Patriot Points will be determined for those who refuse, holding camps and deportation await. A glorious future.
OFC the insurance company commits fraud by claiming the procedure is cosmetic.
I mean, she probably looks better now.
I look what you did there.
Pretty cool story from my home town. Enjoy.