Does a Limited Term Affect How Military vs Police Tightens Ranks in Defending "Bad Apples"?

Here's a compelling good explanation why military has less of a "code of silence" & less tolerance of brutality (at least when it comes to their own people): most military people only serve a limited amount of time then return to the civilian life. In addition: many who serve in in the military these days are marginalized diverse people who have the military as their best opportunity to better their life. 

And in the meantime: cops often try to make law enforcement their career, they're trying to build up their pensions, which ends up creating an identity and class of their own with interests of their own.

Grossman, who came up with killology, the warrior culture ideology, and provides classes to make it easier for cops to kill, even indirectly these aspects in his book On Killing (but more that soldiers need to have some leave to rest, so they don't accumulate trauma and PTSD from being in the killing fields so long) before he pretty much goes into a dog whistle tirade that the cops need to be able to kill because gangs are monsters tearing down civilization. 

So maybe part of the solution is that someone can only be a cop for many years (like 5-10?), then they have to retire and enter civilian life. Maybe instead of a pension, they get access to money for an education? There's probably a lot of creative ideas that can executed, but the impermanence of the position then a requirement to go back into everyday civilian life seems like an important aspect tp fighting the tendency of cops to pull up into themselves to defend each other and feel immune from prosecution & judgment. 

Why the US military usually punishes misconduct but police often close ranks (from The Conversation)

Feedback to a Specious and Speculative New York Times article, "Two Friends in Texas Were Tested for Coronavirus. One Bill Was $199. The Other? $6,408."

Feedback that I e-mailed to the New York Times about a bad example of journalism, especially in these contentious polarized times of COVID-19:

Dear New York Times and Ms. Sarah Kliff,

I am writing in response to the article, "Two Friends in Texas Were Tested for Coronavirus. One Bill Was $199. The Other? $6,408." by Sarah Kliff that was posted online on June 29, 2020.

As a professional health insurance agent for 13 years (albeit, in Illinois) and a high-information citizen listening and reading quite a bit of news (relevant podcasts: the BBC's Coronavirus Global Update, NPR's Coronavirus Daily/Consider This, and Coronavirus Today hosted by Dr Brian McDonough), I found this article in the New York Times very disappointing. It was highly speculative, did not show judicious vetting or fact checking, and failed to provide good context. I find this especially disappointing, considering Ms. Kliff's prestigious bio that has contributed to positive change in health policy.

I find the article highly speculative because of it's bias. Ms. Kliff immediately jumped to the conclusion that something fishy, nefarious, and mysterious was at foot. Ms. Kliff even wrote an abundance of paragraphs of various explanations that she must have interviewed hospital employees, insurance company employees, and other experts. Kilff must have also used expertise that she built up over the years to fill in blank spaces with speculations of things that hospitals and other health professional have done in the past, all of which I don't doubt have occurred and continue to occur.

After reading a couple articles in two publications local to the Leblanc family, though, "Texas woman was charged $6,408 for a coronavirus test at an emergency room" by Read Sector and "Austin woman trying to sort out $6,400 in charges for one COVID-19 test" by Erin Cargile at KXAN original on June 19, 2020 and updated on June 24, 2020, I easily saw that this issue was an innocent CPT billing code issue that occurred either at the hospital or at United Healthcare. The KXAN article even highlights that the hospital notified Ms Leblanc that they realized there was an issue, and they were working with United Healthcare on it.

I could easily stop here since it seems like at least one news source published an update explaining the whole matter five days before the New York Times published its story about Ms Leblanc's drama. Ms. Kliff and/or the New York Times could have a done a quick and easy Web search to see that this matter was a non-story. At the very best, the situation could have been used to explain to readers that these kind of mistakes happen, to stay vigilant with healthcare charges, and what to do when these things happen.

As an insurance agent with experience in this area, however, and as someone who has had a friendship negatively affected over the discussion of your article, I can't help asking: How come Ms. Kliff didn't properly vet this matter before writing the article and the New York Times posting it? Proper vetting would have revealed that this was a common error that occurs in the health insurance and healthcare industry that does not warrant a whole article speculating some vast conspiracy of oddball charges. Honestly, as someone who has to deal with so many of and fix so many of these issues, I hate how often these mistakes happen. Nonetheless, Ms. Kliff painted a specious picture of what had occurred based on a lot of speculation about this particular situation.

Did Ms. Kliff get the copies of hospital invoices and United Healthcare Explanations of Benefits (EOBs) from Ms. Leblanc? How closely did Ms. Kliff look at the invoice and EOBs and compare the two? Did Ms. Kliff make any contact with a health insurance agent that deals with these issues every day? I bet you after hearing the narrative of the procedure that Ms Leblanc got at the drive through testing site and looking at the invoice and EOBs, I could have figured out there was some kind of miscommunication that occurred between United Healthcare and the hospital. Any health insurance agent worth their insurance license and couple years of experience would have been able to do so within a couple hours, max. After looking at these documents and vetting these documents with an insurance agent, did Ms. Kliff go back to Ms. Leblanc to suggest that they wait for the hospital and United Healthcare to negotiate the final settlement of everything?

On top of that, New York Times is a national paper that people all the around the world read. I'm a reader in Chicago, IL. I am sure that you're aware that every state has its own history with COVID-19, has its own Executive Orders, Stay at Home Orders, and even lawsuits between different branches of state governments, let alone the tension between state governments and our federal government. I am also sure that you're aware about the controversy about that World Health Organization representative who said that the spread of the COVID-19 from asymptomatic people is "very rare" then had to walk back that claim the day after. Also we have to remember the tensions that neighbors feel about each other simply about whether to wear a mask or not, whether to go to bars, whether to go eat at restaurants, and so on and so on.

COVID-19 is such a contentious issue in the nation and the world, it further complicates the subject matter of this article. In some areas of the country, only certain categories of people are allowed to get tested for COVID-19 based on a referral from a doctor, their symptoms, whether they've had contact with someone diagnosed with COVID-19, whether they're a first responder or not, and so on and so forth.

In the link provided in the article for the Austin Emergency Center advertisement, it (at least now) says "ATTN: We are not a purely COVID-19 testing service and do not test or screen for asymptomatic patients" on the first page. I don't know if that website had said that when Ms. Leblanc went for the test. Yesterday, according to KUT 90.5, "COVID-19 Latest: Austin Public Health Asks People With Insurance Not To Use Free Testing Sites". Frankly, it's scary that Austin, TX has apparently had to walk back their measures into such regulated measures, but as someone from Chicago, IL, these two factors felt common sense to me, not as measures that had to be put into place again.

The media should be about providing factual, responsible reporting that provides thorough context to provide understanding to readers. Instead, Ms. Kliff wrote and the New York Times published an article based on sparsely vetted speculation with a biased axe to grind that provided very little context for readers from outside the Austin, TX area. As a national paper originating from another corner of the United States with readership from all around the world, you have a responsibility for providing the rules, practices, and norms be followed in that particular area, which likely are very different from where many of your readers live and looking at your paper.

Ms. Kliff had a misinterpretation of this situation, which created a misinterpretation for at least one reader. As for me, I could see that many details had been omitted. Honestly, as someone with experience in this area, I was ready to throw blame all over the place while, after further research, I learned that Texas and Austin had their own conception of how to deal with these things vastly different from my own beliefs ("Of course the hospital has nonsensical billing practices, all of them do. . .but why did Ms. Leblanc go to get tested on a whim and why did she go to the Emergency Room or some kind of drive through for first reponders. . .why didn't she just stay at home, wear a mask, and all sorts of practices to keep other people safe? It's the empathic thing to do!").

All the while, the friend I debated with went off about how horrible the system is, screaming holy hell about how two people who got the same treatment received such vastly different charges, and how horribly unjust the whole system is when everyone should be able to easily get tested without worry about getting crazy bills (all the while I was under the impression that the CARES Act was supposed to make all the testing free for people with insurance policies. . .though again, after further research, I learn that the generous coverage from insurance companies for COVID-19 testing was optional regulation by states and/or optional broadening of coverage from individual insurance companies). Why wasn't even the CARES Act brought up in this article? Shouldn't that huge charge for a COVID-19 test have been a big indicator with the CARES Act in place (though apparently the medical necessity aspect can be a big issue)? Did Ms. Kliff even inquire with anyone about the CARES Act in relation to this case?

I find this article irresponsible reporting by Ms. Kliff and the New York Times, especially in this time of contentious politics and reporting and disinformation. All this mess over an innocent and more routine mistake of a CPT code billing error. Next time Ms. Kliff writes an article in this vein or the New York Times publishes this kind of article, I hope a lot more vetting and fact checking occurs rather than just working to make the article coherent with a biased axe to grind.

Thank you,
Jesse Lex