Pool_2

they had ways of dropping the entire family from coverage. They even implied that the father's job could be lost. An HMO denied treatment of osteomyelitis, bacterial infection of bone, in the hospital in a one year old child with a fever of 104 showing clear cut septic embolism. Coverage was denied because it could have been treated with pills at home, they asserted. Amerimed refused hearing aids, denied as unnecessary treatment for an array of children with congenital hearing impairments, as was sign language instruction and speech therapy - called 'unproven treatments'. The use of physical therapy in treating children with cases of paralysis was called unproven treatment and thus uncovered. No level of documentation changed that view. No third party resided over the judgement. More cases followed, after which Dorothy Bela began recapping her observations. "Well, we thought we came here to learn about Medicaid problems. It would seem, we have another framework to consider. First we need to study the applicable law. Often, in law there are gross contradictions. Such contradictions are not allowed. They must be resolved. Special circumstances that result in such contradictions are usually resolved by only using APPLICABLE LAW. Law of marriage contracts does not apply to mercantile contracts. Torts and criminal law are apart. What is the applicable law? It seems that you have a good issue - need to dig deeper, because there are cases in appeals level courts that would assert that the corporate dealings you are at odds with - are in fact OK. Marcus was rambling about refusals to cover insulin for children with diabetes, "only for coma - not maintenance - fuckers," as Bela ignored and went on. "However, the actual context of applicability was never challenged. They are very detail specific, not general enough to produce a new judicial concept. We can get one