My first point is what the insurance company is saying. It's absolutely true that they are saying that. (It's also a true claim; your argument that all provider networks are limited such that the risk of similar problems exists at some level in all insurance plans is perhaps pedantically true, but not necessarily relevant—e.g., it may be that the only reason the care from the profile provider in this particular case was out of network was that the district's individually negotiated narrow network plan excluded providers that would have been included in standard plans this insurer offered in the area.)
> Not to mention that almost everyone is stuck with the plans their employers choose.
That's factually false; only 49% of Americans are covered by insurance provided by an employer (either their own or as a dependent) health insurance, and not all of them have no other practical option than that plan, so, no “almost everyone” is not stuck with their employer's plan choices.
But, in any case, the employer's plan choice is exactly what the insurance company is highlighting as the issue in this case.
Actually, they are saying if you choose to cut premium costs by selecting a narrow provider network, well, there's a reason why the premium costs are low.
> Why the fuck isn't there a law against this kind of shit?
Because Republicans actively oppose any attempt at health security, and Democrats keep ignoring the majority support for single-payer that polls have shown for close to 30 years in favor of Rube Goldberg solutions that keep private insurers and this type of network-based limitation as central features, despite the fact that hey have less public support and are thus more subject to being politically sabotaged before passage (Clinton) and after (Obama).
Though there's signs of potential for that to change on the Democratic side in the near future...