Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Health

appalachiablue

(43,294 posts)

2. Progress to save lives since three years ago means

Reply to Silent Type (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 15, 2023, 03:55 PM

Nov 2023

everything to patients in that dire situation.

The rejection of treatment by the insurance company in the case of the Michigan man emphasizes the need Medicare for All in the US.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Insurance Execs Refused to Pay for Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Mich. Man. How They Did It: ProPublica [View all] appalachiablue Nov 2023 OP

As sad as this is, I don't think traditional Medicare would have covered it back in 2020. Silent Type Nov 2023 #1

Progress to save lives since three years ago means appalachiablue Nov 2023 #2

Medicare-for-All wouldn't have covered it when he needed it in 2020. Silent Type Nov 2023 #3

I wss referring to reducing the role appalachiablue Nov 2023 #4