• HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    If your default assumption is that this event:

    1. Did not cause an immediate “panic” reduction in insurance denials, even briefly.

    2. Even if it did, that this happening did not save anyone’s life.

    You are just coping because the idea of killing someone ending up saving lives makes you feel icky.

    Even if this is just an anecdote, I find the contrary claim harder to believe.

    • parody
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      IDK if the people actually denying claims were scared enough to change their behavior, well plausible enough ya

      Wonder if any updated guidance went out to them at any point, written or not

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      My default assumption is that this is a shit argument and the people who push it are dishonest fools. There is no (2). There is no second part to this stance, you haven’t presented any evidence yet and you’re posturing as if it’s 100% true.