Talk:Cigna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|||
[edit] Info box
There appears to be information in the box at the start that only apprears in 'edit' mode. Does anyone else have this problem or is it a result of my Apple-Mac/Firefox combination? Doozy88 14:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] (1818)50-0-6262, cigna, Glendale, California; Nataline Sarkisyan; Sarkisyan
Cigna denied transplant; girl dead.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 18:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing "controversial" about recent events. CIGNA made decisions and the girl died while waiting. This is Ethical behaviour not something that is controversial.
By labeling the section "Controversy", it becomes sided to CIGNA and is not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.14.84 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article's weight is definitely not NPOV to begin with. The insurer and its predecessors have been around for a bit over 200 years, yet fully half the article discusses one particular incident in 2007, a pretty extreme example of recentism. --Delirium (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The controversy section has been inproperly researched. The situation is given only as point of opinion, and is obviously not a medically accurate view. No research besides HEADLINE information was used. The information is also used in an BIAS format, and does not inform of the nature and type of surgery preformed. I refer you all to the actual documentation that states coverage information as well as a FULL description of the procedure. Please note, that this was NOT a typical procedure. I am upset that once again it is the company and not the doctor. If anyone is smart enough, actually preform the research.
