[MoreMoore]

I don't really understand the issue. They say that people have a legal system if they're wronged by these companies. And it's clear that the legal system isn't an option for normal people when a company like UHS denies claims. So I want to know what they're talking about and why they think the justice system is sufficient as it is today to help normal people.

Seriously. I want to know what they're talking about. The justice system they're stating exists simply does not.

It has nothing to do with a flame war. That's an unfair characterisation, particularly when people's lives are so deeply affected when they can't get the care they need because of their insurance company.

Or have you been bought and paid for too?

[dang]

"What are you talking about?" is a swipe in online English. It insinuates that the other person doesn't know what they're talking about.

That's even more true in a comment like the GP, which starts with 3 tendentious sentences hammering the other person's point and then moves to "What are you talking about". Such a comment pattern-matches to a cross-examination style of conversation, which the HN guidelines ask you to avoid because it's not what we want here.

If you really want to know what someone is talking about, "what are you talking about?" is an ineffective way to say so, since it means the opposite of what it says, with an overlay of insult.