trocadero

A coach is different because the players get one chance to play the game. Art can be redone as many times as you have the time and resources for. When doing that directing the iterations and making the final selection becomes the important thing. For example, take this piece from the GP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Chihuly#/media/File:Chihu...

How much credit Chihuly deserves varies wildly with how that piece was made. If he had merely said "Make me some yellow/orangish flowers" then he doesn't deserve much credit. If the ~40 flowers we see were the result of 1,000 attempts with him directing ("Make this one 1" bigger, this one less orange" etc.) then he deserves almost all the credit.

They aren't unprofitable. Their EBIT last year was 2.2 billion dollars.

That depends on the state. Even if it's not a lawyer, you still have to send someone. Between salary costs and travel it's still in the thousands.

It is if you have to pay a lawyer to represent you. Between responding and showing up in court it's probably several thousand dollars in billable hours.

Well, I'm sure your doctor will see your blog post and write up a new letter for you. Of course in the off chance that this method is ineffective you could, y'know, call or e-mail the doctor's office and ask them to write the letter your insurance company wants. Honestly, I don't see what the insurance company is doing wrong at this point. They've told you exactly what you need in order get your surgery covered yet your refuse to provide the document that they are reasonably asking for. You have two super simple steps to recovering 10s of thousands of dollars:

(1) Claim your expenses that are clearly covered by your policy. The care in Bali, taxi ride in Bali, Flight to Singapore, Taxi in Singapore, Hospital stay, and the hotel in Singapore. That's gotta be at least $6,000 that you're just leaving on the table.

(2) Call your Doctor and ask him to write a better letter in support of your claim. It should be something like this:

To Whom it may concern,

I have reviewed the IATA manual and my patient Mr. Badger was unfit to fly pending his surgery. The manual states:

The following tables are provided as a guide to the timeframe that should elapse between a medical event and the intended flight. The timeframes may be changed following considered medical assessment of a specific case.

After my medical assessment I found Mr. Badger unfit to fly because:

(1) [Bad thing that might happen] because [medical reason bad thing might happen] (2) [Bad thing that might happen] because [medical reason bad thing might happen] (3) [Bad thing that might happen] because [medical reason bad thing might happen]

Thank You,

Dr So and So

Your booklet says:

We will not cover the following:

2. Any treatment or surgery which we think you do not need immediately and can wait until you return home. Our decision is final.

That's what travel insurance is. It's there to pay for care until you can fly home. Accepting their flight home isn't voiding your insurance. It's getting the coverage you paid for.

>Standard medical advice? Are you even reading what he wrote? His doctor did not clear him to fly.

That's not how insurance works. They aren't going to pay for stuff on the say so of one doctor. The expectation is that they pay for treatment according to published and accepted standards of care. In this case, those say that you can fly with broken bones.

>With all the responses you've generated here and the way you go about your argumentation I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you work for the insurer.

Of course I don't work for the insurer. I am just an experienced backpacker that understands the concept of travel insurance.

> It's crystal clear from the way they conducted themselves that the insurance company would find any excuse to deny his claim

I see no evidence of that. What they offered was exactly what travel insurance is there for. That is, travel home for further treatment after a patient is stabilized. OP wanted to argue he wasn't stabilized. In response, they told him specifically what he needed to get from his doctor in order to justify his claim. As far as I know OP, for whatever reason, never bothered to get that.

IMHO, it's debatable whether or not you should be travelling with unset broken fingers. However, if all you bring to your side of the debate is a single sentence, you're going to lose.

We also don't know what their reaction to paying for the emergency services would be. OP, for reasons that are clear only to him, has decided not to claim ~$6,000 worth of covered expenses.

As an insurance company what would you do?

On one hand, you have published medical standards saying that he is fit to fly. You also have your own doctors review the x-rays and find no reason that he can't fly.

On the other hand you have literally one sentence from an intern saying he isn't fit to fly.

It's a no brainer that you find him fit to fly and deny his claim.

>As a patient what would you do? You have been given a medical opinion that it is unsafe to fly. I definitely don't think anything the guy did was unreasonable

Personally, I go to my doctor and have him write a letter giving the specific reasons why I am unable to fly.

>Your attitude is disgusting.

Oooh please elaborate on your personal insult.

>Do you work for the insurance company or something?

I am a software consultant, which, I suppose gives me a higher than normal aversion to people trying to get more than what is in their clearly stated contract.

Here's the handbook for the policy he bought:

https://www.insureandgo.com/media/1228/iag_mf_pw_adv_0518.pd...

Page 20 says:

What you are covered for

We will pay up to the amount shown in the table of benefits on pages 4 and 5 for any costs for the following that are reasonable and necessary (see definition on page 14) as a result of you being unexpectedly injured or ill during your trip.

1. Emergency medical, surgical and hospital treatment and ambulance costs.

It also says:

Special exclusions which apply to section B

We will not cover the following:

2. Any treatment or surgery which we think you do not need immediately and can wait until you return home. Our decision is final.

12. Any medical treatment that you receive after you have refused the offer of returning to your home area, when, in the opinion of our medical advisors, you are fit to travel.

>You've also mistaken his desire to finish receiving treatment in Singapore as a desire to avoid the NHS

It's right there in his e-mail. He was concerned:

"About potential waiting times on the NHS".

>They were asking him to fly for 20+ hours in a coach seat, considering his hand was unstable that seams unreasonable. It also increases the likelihood of additional injury as he travels.

IMHO if his hand is well enough to be discharged then the presumption is it's well enough to travel. Of course, he can provide evidence from his doctor to rebut that presumption. The insurance co asked for that but it's not clear he ever provided it.

>The were asking him to transition his medical care from one hospital to another in another country on the other side of the globe.

Which is the service he paid for. Travel insurance is to pay for emergency care until you are able to fly home. If he wants an "any hospital, for any treatment, in any country" policy those are sold too, but, naturally, are much more expensive than Bronze level travelers insurance.

Did you do this?

>The patient may want to forward onto the treating doctor to help point out to us where in the manual the reason why he is not fit to fly as our decision would still be curtailment and he would have been fit to fly. http://www.iata.org/publications/Pages/medical-manual.aspx

>I felt that paragraph was the most relevant to me

And not the one specifically dealing with broken bones?

>I wasn't going to ignore the advice of a DR who was holding my X-rays to appease an insurance company who doesn't give 2 shits about my health.

Which is not something anyone is going to argue about with you. Except, of course, those that have to write the $15K check. They are going to want more documentation that a one liner when standard medical advice says you can fly.

>I felt I shouldn't claim the first bills because I hadn't informed them before the procedure. And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill.

What you did after the accident was reasonable. Claim the bills that you were covered for.

> And yes, because it turned out to be a fairly manageable bill. But the 2nd procedure was going to be considerably more, so I notified them. To clarify, I didn't want any long term care at all, I was only asking them to cover the 2nd operation that I was already scheduled in for.

Which they specifically told you you weren't covered for.

Your article says

>At this point, it’s 4 days until my scheduled surgery to have a plate fitted in my hand, and each reply from Insure and Go takes 3–4 days

The e-mails you include from Insure and Go have time stamps of June 6 and June 7. Perhaps they took more time before or after that, but during the time sensitive part of your narrative they were responsive. It was you that didn't respond to their June 7 e-mail requesting the not fit to fly until at least June 12.

Right, but I wouldn't call 5 days later "immediately following an accident". It boils down to the question of whether or not he was fit to fly back to the UK to have that surgery there. Even if he wasn't, the documentation he provided for that is lackluster and I don't blame the insurance company for rejecting it.

He's being willfully ignorant there. That quote comes from the section saying when an airline requires medical clearance. Two pages later there are several pages of specific medical conditions and guidance on if they should fly. One of them is "Full plaster cast" and it says that you can fly 2 days after getting one.

Nah, travel insurance is to cover emergency medical expenses abroad. Long term care is taken care of by your local insurance or government system.

>Yeah, it's unclear to me why he didn't ask for/demand coverage for the emergency finger-attaching procedure.

That's bizarre to me as well. Why does he think not claiming reimbursement for covered expenses is being reasonable?

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the insurance company here. Travel insurance is there to take care of emergency medical care. It's not for long term care. The guy clearly didn't want to travel because he preferred to be cared in Singapore. From his e-mail:

>I intend to stay in Asia for some time yet. I did consider travelling home to have surgery in the UK, but the medical Service here is excellent and I'm already scheduled in for the procedure on Monday. I was concerned about the long haul flight and travel time with a broken hand and fractured rib, as well as potential waiting times on the NHS.

So he's pretty clearly trying to game the situation. He wanted to keep traveling and avoid the NHS. The letter from the doctor saying he was not fit to fly simply states:

>The patient Badger Ryan Sean was admitted from 11/6 to 12/6 for an operation for a right index finger proximal phalanx avulsion fracture on 31/5 and was not fit for flying before his operation for his fracture.

It's reasonable for the insurance company to ask for more details and a specific reason why he wasn't fit to fly.

And a ridiculous amount of gifs of random crap

Amazon (probably) makes about as much money from advertising as they do from their retail operations. When the margins for advertising is ~50% and retail is ~5% a little bit of ad revenue can go farther than a lot of retail revenue.

Of course that analysis ignores that the retail business is what allows Amazon to have an advertising business. But the GP is largely accurate. Amazon is most well known for their retail but it's not really what makes them the money. AWS is their cash cow and advertising is becoming their second.

The article waves away the stealth benefits but that's the number one issue. If a low radar signature is important then everything else is irrelevant. And I think it is. It doesn't matter if a F-16 can out dog fight a F-35 because that's not how the engagement will play out. The F-35 will shoot down an F-16 before the F-16 knows it's there.

>https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-mak....

>We created a stereotyping scale which measures views like believing people of color are more violent or lazier than whites, but it was not included in our final models because it did not predict voting behavior.

Let's just ignore the thing that disproves our premise.

This is definitely a partisan issue. It's true that there was always a low level pro-privacy/anti-fb sentiment, but it's the perception that FB was used to get Trump elected turned it into an inferno. If Clinton had won the election there would be far less attention paid to FB.

That's how it was always going to end up. You can't reduce the money going into TV from ~$60 a customer to $10 a customer and expect the same content quality.

Netflix had a relatively brief moment in the sun where they could buy lots of content cheap because streaming was add on revenue to the production companies. That's not going to keep happening for much longer.

IMHO, I think we will end up back to a cable like situation. It doesn't make sense to pay two middlemen for access to content. In other words, I don't want to pay Comcast and Netflix to deliver Disney's content. Eventually, we will end up with ISPs providing access to a handful of streaming services each with their own exclusive content.

Packages will also come back because they make economic sense. Ultimately, the NBA, NFL, MLB, NCAA, et al will get more money from a streaming sports package than trying to sell individual streaming services.