jerrymahoney

I will presume that is a group plan which is a different animal from individually underwritten policies.

I’ve read a lot of your posts, I naturally draw my own conclusions.

So I guess you are not a friend of Mr. AquaLung. All his friends get their claims denied.

That's too bad -- so they didn't get to ring the "claim denied" bell.

Great! and then you give hi-5's all around the office every time a claim is denied.

With the case above where the cancer was "slow growing" and was there before the insurance was issued, it would seem the insurer felt there was at least some urological problem for which he should of sought medical intervention.

My father had prostate cancer but it was monitored close enough that -- with radical prostate removal before cancer had spread -- he lived another roughly 10 years. So sometimes it's just how closely you monitor things to catch a problem before it becomes a real problem

My finances are such that I can afford health insurance premiums but would have a hard time coming up with a large lump sum to pay for if/when sh*t happens

Maybe you have some to spare.

You're welcome. From the CIGNA link above: "or should reasonably have been) aware at the date cover commenced," So how long after he initiated coverage did he develop bladder cancer? No symptoms of bladder-type issues prior to cancer diagnosis?

From the linked article: Luttig and Tribe acknowledge the question of Trump appearing on ballots in 2024 might ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Note this from Cigna Global * 2. Treatment for: a) a pre-existing condition; or b) any condition or symptoms which result from, or are related to, a pre-existing condition. We will not pay for treatment for a pre-existing condition of which the policyholder was (or should reasonably have been) aware at the date cover commenced, and in respect of which we have not expressly agreed to provide cover * This insurance is provided by: Cigna Life Insurance Company of Europe S.A.–N.V. 52 Avenue de Cortenbergh 1000 Brussels Belgium https://www.cignaglobal.com/dvc-pdfs/CLICE-EP19/en/CGHO CLICE EXP Policy Rules_EN_09_2020.pdf

You left off the standard anecdotal proof: "I have a friend who ..."

How Many of Trump’s Trials Will Happen Before the Election? Donald J. Trump is the target of four separate criminal indictments, but the prosecutions could drag on for months or even years. Michael B. Mukasey, a former U.S. attorney general * and longtime Manhattan federal judge, said because of the complex issues raised in all four of Mr. Trump’s cases, “I think the odds are slim to none that any of them gets to trial before the election.” * (2007-2009 under GW Bush) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/nyregion/trump-indictments-trial-2024-election.html https://archive.md/pPGuI#selection-993.0-993.252

I said largely, not exclusively. "Michael B. Mukasey, a former U.S. attorney general * and longtime Manhattan federal judge, said because of the complex issues raised in all four of Mr. Trump’s cases, “I think the odds are slim to none that any of them gets to trial before the election.”' * 2007-2009 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/nyregion/trump-indictments-trial-2024-election.html

There is Supreme Court precedent on what is adequate counsel. And the Speedy Trials Act is largely to prevent delays on the part of the Prosecution, not of the defense.

... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That may very well be, but it seems they want to frame it as a Sixth Amendment constitutional issue as the basis for a possible appeal.

Trump asks to push Jan. 6 trial beyond 2024 election — to April 2026 U.S. proposes a January 2024 trial, starting before primary voting begins, but Donald Trump’s lawyers ask for a major delay citing ‘overwhelming’ amount of evidence Lawyers for Donald Trump said Thursday that it will take them years to prepare to defend the former president against allegations that he criminally conspired to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, asking a judge to hold his trial in April 2026, long after he finishes running in next year’s presidential election. In a 16-page filing, attorney Gregory Singer argued for the defense team that putting Trump on trial as requested by prosecutors on Jan. 2, 2024, on charges of plotting to undermine the federal government, obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election and disenfranchise voters would mark a “rush to trial” that would violate his constitutional rights and be “flatly impossible” given the enormity of the government’s evidence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/17/trial-date-trump-jan-6-proposal/ https://archive.is/2djnJ

I agree. But if you want some comedy, just remember this one from 2015 (just the first few seconds):

"Be a man" were your words. And I get real tired of this "donnie boy" belittling stuff. This is a dangerous person and has been long before he ever got to President .. and one of the things that helps him most is to be underestimated and counted out before he comes back.

11. Be a man, go to trial, and be found not guilty of all criminal charges. (and if you think that is impossible, think again.)

I think the guy in that article, of which I can only quote 3+ sentences, has an answer for that. It is a matter of how the statutes are structured and what a prosecution has to prove to the jury that the defendant(s) has indeed violated those criminal statutes.

Also from that linked article: In other words, this indictment is ambitious. But it also answers two related questions: Why bring yet another case against Trump in yet another jurisdiction? Isn’t he going to face a federal trial in Washington, D.C., for the same acts outlined in the Georgia indictment? The answers lie in the distinctions between state and federal law. Georgia law is in many ways both more broad and more focused than the federal statutes at issue in Smith’s case against Trump. The breadth is evident from the racketeering charges. ...

If that's the case, at least as expressed in the linked article, it is because the structure of the state statutes present more problems for Mr. Trump than the more restrictive federal statutes.