I’m not sure what you mean by underwriting it and declining coverage anyway. But you’re correct, it is challenging to get somebody approved for taking medication relating to anxiety/depression. If they have a history of being hospitalized, they will not approve the underwriting.
It’s surprising that your wife got declined for being 10 lbs under weight. If that was truly the only problem, I’d be able to get that approved through just about anybody. Which company did you use?
Corporate person only when convenient.
DOJ wants people to realize just how large Google is. Google doesn’t want people to realize how big they are.
Wouldn’t affect the payout, but it would increase your premium.
Typically no. Life insurance companies don’t like anything regarding mental illnesses. Largely because it’s under researched, so they just say “no thanks.”
Come on in! There’s cookies.
Reddit? No. I was thinking moreso Meta. They have the deeper pockets and a proven track record of breaking privacy laws to their own benefit.
My tin foil hat is telling me it’s one of the other social media companies funding a hacking group to do it. They stand to have the most to lose, and they’ve seemingly decided to enjoy changing the narrative regarding multiple topics. Lemmy stands directly against what the bigger social medias stand for.
I have no evidence to back this though. As a business owner I just know that things become very consistent when people are being paid, and very inconsistent when they aren’t. These attacks are seemingly very consistent/organized.
It’s true. All new inventions have a morality issue to them. And those moralities need to be weighed heavily before implementing them.
But it can also be used to guide a secluded operative back to his troop. It can be used to detect road mines that otherwise would have exploded.
New technology is just a tool. It’s the people choosing how to use it that makes it moral/immoral.
I could see some cool military applications for this too.
The math maths.
Somewhere between “they all deserve to eat” and “get off my bed” for me.
If they wanted to protect kids they’d have a long list of better options.
Gun control Better funding for education Mental health services Improvements to adoption/foster care systems
The list goes on. We’ve been shown the government only cares about kids until they’re born. So until those things are fixed, I’m going to assume it’s not really about the kids, and more about stripping our rights away.
I’m sure this is an important article and all, but good god that title is confusing.
Why are we always making titles like Yoda is saying it?
Not understanding and not approving of it are two different things. Millennials love our quirky/scary younger siblings, and I won’t hear otherwise.
Ahhh gotcha. We’re basically saying the same thing