Monday, November 23, 2009

Depressed Woman Loses Health Benefits for Happy Pics on Facebook

SHOOT: Is the point that this woman's privacy was violated, or that she wasn't depressed? In theory she could have posted those pictures from any time. However, if they are recent photographs I'd be inclined to think her insurers have a case. We give up our rights to privacy under certain circumstances. For example when we go to trial. And when we place information on the internet, although the latter certainly has a few exceptions.
clipped from mashable.com

beachfacebookA Canadian woman claims she has lost her health benefits after her insurance company used her Facebook pictures as evidence that she was no longer depressed.

Nathalie Blanchard had been on sick leave for a year from her job at IBM in Bromont, Quebec, after being diagnosed with severe depression. The 29-year old was receiving sick pay from insurer Manulife.

However, when payments stopped coming she contacted Manulife and, she claims, was told that Facebook (Facebook) pictures taken on a beach and during a night out were evidence that she was no longer depressed.

It’s a case that adds fuel to the privacy debate, especially given that Blanchard claims her Facebook photos were private. Are we entering an unsettling new reality in which insurance companies are able to deny claims based on Tweets and Facebook pictures?

 blog it

1 comment:

lofa said...

I've read several news articles and researched for additional details before coming to a conclusion.

I'm sorry to say this, but it sounds like to me that this woman is just lazy. Anyone who really had a depression [or other mental] problem would NOT be posting photos on facebook, much less continuing to post photos on facebook. This whole "I have a depression problem" is just one that ANYONE can fake.

Now as for the argument of how facebook profiles should have been locked and private... there is NO such thing as keeping things "safe" and locked on the net. ANYTHING that gets posted or sent [yes that includes EMAIL] through the net STAYS on the net. I've known this simple FACT for years.

As for the insurance company being "in the wrong" to snoop and discontinue her benefits... I'm sorry, but they have every right to know if someone is handing them a line a sh!t just to get free money out of the deal. There ARE people out there who REALLY do need and deserve to have health insurance, but don't get it because of individuals like this woman who make it bad for everyone else. I commend the insurance company for buckling down and I wish that other leeching individuals would get caught and cut off too.

Bottom line: it doesn't pay to be a thief, liar, lazy, money moocher. Let this be a lesson for anyone who thinks it's ok to suck on the system while others pay their hard earned money for it. IBM would be wise to not allow the woman to come back to the job. Instead, they should tell her to take a hike, as this story I'm sure will have some sort of bad reflection on the corporation. If this woman is capable of going to a beach weekly and capable of going to night clubs to see male dancers, then she's most certainly capable of working a normal job like a normal human being.

Don't feel sorry for con artists. They're good at sucking people dry of their money.

8:07 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)