Brain Dead Girls Court Case

[TheRealJoeFish]

There is the issue of whether insurance should have to cover something such as this. I would think it certainly shouldn't. But that's a technical matter I have no expertise in.

What are you insuring against at this stage?

Well, that's a good point.

Technically, the question is what the insurance contract says. I would think that in most places, the insurance contract could say "this policy doesn't cover keeping alive a body that has been declared brain dead." But I think the particulars of this case are such that 1) they're fighting to try to say under California law that the insurance *can't* do that, and 2) in New Jersey the law says that someone (insurance, the govt, etc) has to pay for it. The correct outcomes would likely be 1) the court rules that the insurance company doesn't have to pay, and 2) the law should be overturned. #2 is beyond the scope of this prticular situation but is (at least a little bit) important going forward.

[TheRealJoeFish]

DAMMIT I KEEP CLICKING QUOTE WHEN I MEAN EDIT

[Angrboda]

Keeping her on life support does not further the girl's interests. I sympathize with the family, but they're putting their own needs above the needs and interests of the dead girl. That's not humane; it's selfish.

[Easy Guns]

She has been kept alive since that time with medical support.

Incorrect.  She has been kept dead.

The family is in serious denial.

Dolan says insurance companies are paying for Jahi's nursing care and around-the-clock treatment with a ventilator in New Jersey,

Again, incorrect.  The rate payers are paying.

I disagree.

Rate payers are paying executives to get rich.

Every time an insurance company agrees to insure a customer, they do a risk assessment to determine overall health and likelihood of an accident. MOST of the time insurance companies are on the favorable end of that wager, every once in a while they're not.

If the insured is paying their premium, then the insurance company is holding up their end of the contract. Nothing more, nothing less. That contractual agreement has nothing to do with other paying customers.

If you feel the insurance company is taking their poor wager out of your pocket book, you should take it up with the insurance company.

[brewer]

Keeping her on life support does not further the girl's interests.  I sympathize with the family, but they're putting their own needs above the needs and interests of the dead girl.  That's not humane; it's selfish.

This may be a little glib, but how does anyone brain dead have interests? How is it inhumane? She is dead.

I do agree that this is selfish. I agree that it is an insult/offense to her memory (prior to the accident). I'll add creepy, macabre, gruesome, appalling, hideous, ............ She has become corpse that they feed, water and breath for.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It's the family's decision, whatever they wanna do. I don't think it's a matter of morality, since I don't think it would be wrong to keep her alive, OR to pull the plug on her in these circumstances.

Also it's impossible to say, as outsiders looking in, how we personally would handle that situation if it was our own child. No judgement over here.

Agree. Their decision and theirs alone.

If it's their decision alone then they are responsible for the entire bill alone.  They are selfish twits who are robbing other people for their own vanity.

[Foxaèr]

Parents can be fucking retarded. May they waste away their money at the expense of their living children for a lost cost. Seems reasonable to me.

[brewer]

I disagree.

Rate payers are paying executives to get rich.

Every time an insurance company agrees to insure a customer, they do a risk assessment to determine overall health and likelihood of an accident. MOST of the time insurance companies are on the favorable end of that wager, every once in a while they're not.  

If the insured is paying their premium, then the insurance company is holding up their end of the contract. Nothing more, nothing less. That contractual agreement has nothing to do with other paying customers.

If you feel the insurance company is taking their poor wager out of your pocket book, you should take it up with the insurance company.

Wow, this is fascinating. How long have you worked in the medical insurance field? Actuary? Underwriter? What do you base your statements on?

[Easy Guns]

I disagree.

Rate payers are paying executives to get rich.

Every time an insurance company agrees to insure a customer, they do a risk assessment to determine overall health and likelihood of an accident. MOST of the time insurance companies are on the favorable end of that wager, every once in a while they're not.  

If the insured is paying their premium, then the insurance company is holding up their end of the contract. Nothing more, nothing less. That contractual agreement has nothing to do with other paying customers.

If you feel the insurance company is taking their poor wager out of your pocket book, you should take it up with the insurance company.

Wow, this is fascinating. How long have you worked in the medical insurance field? Actuary? Underwriter? What do you base your statements on?

If you disagree with my statements, it works best to explain how your position differs from mine.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Parents can be fucking retarded.  May they waste away their money at the expense of their living children for a lost cost.  Seems reasonable to me.

This case is like a zombie movie when everyone knows that when a person dies he returns as a zombie in about a minute and then proceeds to chomp on the living.  There's usually a scene where a family member dies and the grief-stricken survivors don't want to smash their loved one's head in so that he won't become a zombie.  Of course they always wait too long and then the corpse becomes a zombie and attacks the dummies.  

The girl needs to return as a zombie and start chomping down on them.  Maybe then they will regret not pulling the plug when they had a chance.  There's no cure for the girl.  She's a goner.  Accept it and move on.