You have part 1 Resistance within and can't wait to see what happens next? I feel the same way. Make yourself a hot or cold drink of your choice, sit back and enjoy the show.
What is it about?
For once, without much fanfare, I'll get to the point. This is a contradiction, it means you've done a sloppy job and I don't think it's okay, do you? That's why the shit falls on your head and you now have four times as much work to do.
What do I demand?
First comes the part that I already touched on in the first part (read more in here). Because this is just too beautiful and I could read it through another hundred times, here it is again.
In my view, this actually says everything that needs to be said, but we must always bear in mind that our interlocutor on the other side has no idea. No idea what we are talking about. No idea what our health is like. No idea what it means to suffer from ALS. But unfortunately an MDK on his side, who employs enough lawyers who know how it goes in court. So we have to beat them with their own weapons.
If the matter ends up in court, we must ensure that judges also get a quick overview. This is because proceedings often fail due to a lack of understanding of the actual matter (illness) behind the main matter (objection in opposition proceedings in court) by relevant persons. A lack of understanding and time to prepare adequately. If there are as many individual points that are objected to as in an objection procedure against the MDK - believe me, I find errors in every expert opinion - you cannot assume that the judges know all the facts when it comes to the hearing...
I help myself by specifying my assertions in detail and, for the purpose of proving all the individual characteristics, I only really step on the gas on the next few pages.
Deadline and consequences
That's another thing I could have despaired about all too often in my professional life, but also in my private life - yes, actually, especially in my private life. Inconsistent action. It's like our climate policy. Setting one climate target after another (if at all), but buckling as soon as it comes to fossil fuels. Even the biggest drumbeat is useless if it says between the lines, I'll try to object and if it's rejected, well, then no. Nope. Nothing. Your expert opinion is shit. You'll never get away with it in court and you know that very well.
So you can use this as a Lawsuit preparation understand.
By the way, I'm skipping a few paragraphs of my writing. Otherwise we'll still be sitting here tomorrow. My aim is to convey the big picture.I will make the complete document available for download free of charge at the end.
Further in the text. Meet the deadline or I'm out and you'll hear from the court.
Of course, there is something a bit threatening about the way I have formulated this. This cannot be generalised at all. You should be careful that you don't meet the criteria for coercion under § 240 of the Criminal Code and thereby make yourself liable to prosecution. That would be irony of fate. Or sarcasm of fate? Does such a thing even exist? Sarcasm of fate? Well, assuming you believe in fate. Which I don't. In any case, such a cross-beat would be exceedingly embarrassing.
As far as the Medical Service for Health and Long-Term Care Insurance (MDK) is concerned, its expert opinion determining my need for long-term care - or determining that I don't need it - is so clear to me that I practically feel like a creditor who has been cheated out of his money and his benefit. Which, in my opinion, makes the whole thing all right again. In any case, it's worth the small risk for me. Everyone has to decide for themselves how far they - oh, sorry, he/she, fuck gender - are prepared to go. That's why I explain every paragraph in such detail.
Justification
With this reasoning, I start my actual argumentation. Of course, this will look different in each individual case. Here, too, I like to start with a brief introduction that tells the reader what to expect. And why they can expect it.
That's not absolutely necessary. Nobody is as meticulous a bean counter as I am when it comes to spotting - let's call it - inconsistencies in the other side's presentation. And my letters are correspondingly long. You'll see.
So just to put that in perspective, we're currently at maybe 15% with my appeal. Without attachments, of course.
Such a transition could look something like this, ideally shorter than all my babbling here;
At this point, I would like to take the liberty of contradicting an answer in the form of a standard letter from the drawer that is quite obviously inapplicable or partially inapplicable and/or otherwise inapplicable. Not because I want to take offence. Well, not only. I'm sure you remember what I said about your interlocutors on the other side. They're just people too. And what are humans by nature? That's right, lazy. Although I prefer the term „efficient“. Of course, if given the opportunity, he will initially reject everything with a standard letter. So let's take this option away from him right away. Not everyone can be like me. The likelihood that you'll get someone as messed up as I am, who spends Sundays and public holidays explaining sample letters of objection, is probably close to zero.
In practice, it could look something like this:
Speaking of which, I also have a „sweeping statement“ from the drawer today.
This post will be revised soon. I just need to sleep because the MDK is coming in eight hours and my face hurts from the mask.
And now we're going to make a sweeping strike. Almost.
