Google了一下，這篇文章值得一讀

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/limited_benefits.html

Aetna有欺騙嫌疑:"Aetna’s clear intention was to hoodwink low-wage workers into believing erroneously that they were purchasing traditional health insurance."

你可能真的被公司的保險坑了:"We found that a particular policy set forth by Aetna had benefits so small as to be virtually worthless.  We were also concerned that people were led to believe they had significantly more coverage than they actually had. "

 

 

所有跟帖： 

• 如果真的是的話，這點錢也不值得請律師呀？如果是當地的公司，還可以上小額法庭。 -我也有話說- ♀ (0 bytes) () 05/17/2011 postreply 14:30:37

• 至少老貓的了解是,一般小額法庭不處理這一類保險理賠的糾紛. 這種案件需要在正式民事庭處理. -單身老貓- ♂ (0 bytes) () 05/17/2011 postreply 15:03:38

• 回複：Google了一下，這篇文章值得一讀 -有感而發- ♂ (191 bytes) () 05/17/2011 postreply 18:04:48

• 回複：回複：Google了一下，這篇文章值得一讀 -catnip- ♀ (25 bytes) () 05/17/2011 postreply 19:09:23

• 真的被公司的保險坑了. Talk to lawyers to see if -N.- ♀ (29 bytes) () 05/17/2011 postreply 20:58:49

• 沒錯，而且Aetba的客戶服務極差，等幾個鍾頭都沒人接聽電話。 -catnip- ♀ (21 bytes) () 05/17/2011 postreply 19:07:50

• 沒有這個經曆。覺得最長等幾分鍾。給他們email都及時回我。 -愛娃- ♀ (0 bytes) () 05/18/2011 postreply 07:09:42

• Consumer Affairs評論 -playdoh2- ♂ (219 bytes) () 05/18/2011 postreply 08:58:47

• 這篇是2007年的文章了。 如果有什麽的話，不會現在都還在賣這個保險吧？ -如塵- ♀ (116 bytes) () 05/18/2011 postreply 17:23:45

• 回複：這篇是2007年的文章了。 如果有什麽的話，不會現在都還在賣這個保險吧？ -playdoh2- ♂ (597 bytes) () 05/18/2011 postreply 19:42:19