You correctly identify a problem then suggest a complicated technical solution. The simple solution is to make these practices illegal by passing laws.
The point is that laws are useless without enforcement. There's a wide body of civil law that depends upon the plaintiff to assert their rights. The government isn't going to go monitoring every private transaction to ensure it conforms to every applicable law. We don't want them to do that - in general the government should stay out of private transactions, that's what makes them private. And the law usually requires multiple attempts and back-and-forths to ensure that everyone has had a chance to rectify the situation before it goes to the court system. Again, this is a good thing.
But one side of the transaction is much more able to put up with convoluted processes and paper trails than the other. A corporation can amortize the cost of the paper trail across many customer interactions and build systems to handle it automatically. It can hire employees to do nothing but sit on the phone, and build delays into business processes that will make most customers give up.
These sort of LLM startups just give the same economies of scale to customers seeking redress. Yes, it'd be easier if the whole process didn't exist - there's an old joke about LLMs generating e-mails to sound longer and more impressive than they need to be, and then another LLM summarizing the e-mail back into one sentence that isn't really what the original person meant. But the problem is that each incentive along the way makes the company better off if they get the customer to go away, while each incentive for the customer makes them better off if they don't go away, and so you get an arms race between them.
So many of our consumer-protection laws are written by a tremendously adversarial system: one side does its level best to get solid, genuinely-effective protections in place, and the other side won't let them happen at all until they're hamstrung almost beyond their ability to function.
It'd not wrong to view "the government" as something that is run by a small group whose interests are not congruent with the majority of the population, and experience shows this.
That's one of the hardest things for STEM types to learn, not everything can or needs to be solved with a complicated technical solution. You see it with HR and interpersonal type things all the time, where some minor communicator could solve the issue, but people start suggesting overly involved technical processes instead.
As an example, insurance covering trans care is required by state law in my state. Is it any easier to be trans in New York than other states? Yes. But you still get very familiar with your insurance claims process and the documentation hurdles. ("We need a letter from your therapist, not your doctor." This exists nowhere in WPATH8, but it does delay the money going out of their bank account while a therapist copy-pastes the form letter. One week to wait for your appointment. One week for them to turn it around. 2 weeks of interest earned by the insurance company. And that's the best case for the patient that already has the necessary support network.)
Correct, this is how it works in many other countries.
> [Some stuff about health insurance documentation being complicated]
Almost every developed country except the US has settled on some model of a single-payer system with universal coverage. This whole thing with private insurance companies and documentation requirements doesn't have to be a thing.
This is not amazing. The single-payer model is unfortunately too political, and somehow being trans is a hot button political issue right now. It really, really sucks for these kids.
Meanwhile in the US, there is a lot of hate, but a lot of insurance companies do cover the necessary care. They even pay for flights/hotels in other states when care isn't available in your state because of political issues. We all like to hate insurance, but seeing those things commonly available in private insurance policies is ... refreshing. You are still going to have to file appeals, but it's better than "the government doesn't believe in trans people so fuck you".
> The government passed a law banning prescription of puberty blockers for kids
This is completely independent of how health care is paid for. It might happen that a similar law is passed in the US, and the same would apply over there, private health insurance or not.
Those parents should be investigated by social services for this abuse. Destroying a crucial stage in your child's developmental process to adulthood is awful, deleterious, terrible parenting which shouldn't be enabled by anyone and needs to be urgently prevented.
It's quite a stretch to call this abuse, and I know you know it, because you created a brand new throwaway account to make your comment.
Law being on the books does not resolve the central asymmetry here. Again, their full time job is bleeding you. You getting your rights asserted comes at the expense of your time.
Hell, when was the last time you got to negotiate a EULA with $BigCorp's legal group? Odds are, never.
The NLRB will work to represent your interests. They are doing their job. Go to them if you have a dispute to resolve.
As if that's any less of a complicated technical solution.
Meanwhile, how often has a company in the US been reigned in by another company?
Disruptive services dramatically impact companies at scale
The Credit Dispute industry radically lowered the aggressive dark patterns of credit score companies like Experian, as an example.