Ya, I get it. I don't think it's OK, where we have ended up. But I also have a lot of trouble saying it's any worse than what these companies do to people. It's tough to actually understand until you are going through it. To see a loved one suffering, to see the $1000 a month disappear from your bank account, and to spend months on the phone trying to get approval for a medication your doctor has said will help and prescribed, and then to be ####ed repeatedly while hearing someone scream in pain while you wait for the rejection letter to show up in the mail, because that's how they contact you, because it adds delays and makes them more profit? This is the system that they setup. This is the ultimate result of treating people like this.
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not at all surprised, and don't feel a tinge of sympathy for his killing, because he's responsible for far worse. We go to war to stop murderous leaders from foisting suffering on others, and we accept the deaths of those in that case, often celebrating an end to their evil reigns of terror. Yet it's "just part of the system" here. So why is it acceptable in one case, but not the other?
Listen I agree with you, the US system is ####ed.
I've had this conversation with family that live there. They do very well. My BIL, needed back surgery and he had it in 7 days. He is a high earning individual. He was rallying for access to Health Care as one of the plusses as living in the US (he is CDN). But he is the small minority, that majority of Americans are in the boat you described. But frankly, they want this system. People still complain about Obamacare and just voted in a government that isn't a fan of Obamacare.
BTW, I have also have also had a debilitating injury. At one point my neck was so bad I couldn't get out of bed for weeks. I know the pain.
All those things do not make it right to walk up to people on the street and shoot them.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Ya, I get it. I don't think it's OK, where we have ended up. But I also have a lot of trouble saying it's any worse than what these companies do to people. It's tough to actually understand until you are going through it. To see a loved one suffering, to see the $1000 a month disappear from your bank account, and to spend months on the phone trying to get approval for a medication your doctor has said will help and prescribed, and then to be ####ed repeatedly while hearing someone scream in pain while you wait for the rejection letter to show up in the mail, because that's how they contact you, because it adds delays and makes them more profit? This is the system that they setup. This is the ultimate result of treating people like this.
I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not at all surprised, and don't feel a tinge of sympathy for his killing, because he's responsible for far worse. We go to war to stop murderous leaders from foisting suffering on others, and we accept the deaths of those in that case, often celebrating an end to their evil reigns of terror. Yet it's "just part of the system" here. So why is it acceptable in one case, but not the other?
So you know for certain that this particular individual is personally responsible for far worse than being shot down in the street. Don't misunderstand - not suggesting UNC is not responsible for worse - I'm saying I'd like to know how you determined this individual was guilty and 'got what he deserved'.
Also, to quote George "We are living in a society".
Being able to walk up to someone in the day and shoot them and get off is the slipperiest of slopes.
I'm not stating what a jury should or shouldn't do. I'm saying, there's a world where a jury could find him not guilty. Where even if all evidence points to guilt, the jury could be biased towards the killer.
Which is pretty much how OJ played out. Anyone who was unbiased knew he was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. But those who wanted to let him off for murder for ideological reasons? They felt he wasn't guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. And the jury was a group of people who fell into the latter. They had an axe to grind against the police, the justice system and white society. Their grievances were real, their decision to let OJ off the hook was driven in part by those grievances.
I'm curious as to why you don't see that as a possible outcome here given the number of social media posts praising the killer and finding very little sympathy for the victim.
I'm curious as to why you don't see that as a possible outcome here given the number of social media posts praising the killer and finding very little sympathy for the victim.
Because a world where a person sees it as acceptable to walk up to someone and shoot them in broad day light because they don't like their business practices is a frightening thought.
How does that not frighten you?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Because a world where a person sees it as acceptable to walk up to someone and shoot them in broad day light because they don't like their business practices is a frightening thought.
How does that not frighten you?
Just because an outcome is frightening doesn't make it an impossible outcome. I'm not sure how suggesting an outcome is plausible is the same thing as me advocating for said outcome.
So you know for certain that this particular individual is personally responsible for far worse than being shot down in the street. Don't misunderstand - not suggesting UNC is not responsible for worse - I'm saying I'd like to know how you determined this individual was guilty and 'got what he deserved'.
Reading the manifesto it sure sounds like UH did things that led to this. Beyond his individual justification...
Spoiler!
Quote:
For years, it was a mystery: Seemingly out of the blue, therapists would feel like they’d tripped some invisible wire and become a target of UnitedHealth Group.
A company representative with the Orwellian title “care advocate” would call and grill them about why they’d seen a patient twice a week or weekly for six months.
In case after case, United would refuse to cover care, leaving patients to pay out-of-pocket or go without it. The severity of their issues seemed not to matter.
Around 2016, government officials began to pry open United’s black box. They found that the nation’s largest health insurance conglomerate had been using algorithms to identify providers it determined were giving too much therapy and patients it believed were receiving too much; then, the company scrutinized their cases and cut off reimbursements.
By the end of 2021, United’s algorithm program had been deemed illegal in three states.
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently filed a lawsuit against UMR, Inc., a third-party administrator and UnitedHealth Group, Inc. subsidiary. The lawsuit alleges that UMR denied thousands of claims based on diagnosis codes and allegedly failed to comply with the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended (“ACA”) and the DOL’s claims procedures regulation.
Credit: Illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica. Charts by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Health Care Health Insurers Have Been Breaking State Laws for Years
States have passed hundreds of laws to protect people from wrongful insurance denials. Yet from emergency services to fertility preservation, insurers still say no.
But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis — an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.
United had flagged McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.
On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.
“I knew that was coming,” said Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Kavanaugh replied.
Just because an outcome is frightening doesn't make it an impossible outcome. I'm not sure how suggesting an outcome is plausible is the same thing as me advocating for said outcome.
It's tough to see 12 random people thinking that health insurance companies are so evil that the murder is justified. I don't see the courts allowing the lawyer to bring up too much in the way of his business practices as any kind of justification.
My personal view on this is that the insurance companies of America are insufficiently regulated private utilities. They should be nationalized.
The decision to nationalize them is a political problem, not a problem driven by the CEO of said companies. If the political will existed to nationalize them - they would be nationalized.
As such, holding a CEO culpable for the ills of private health insurance isnt the right answer. It's wrong. That would be akin to murdering an oil CEO because you are concerned about climate change and lack of political will to address such issues.
It's not a good outcome...but I understand the mindset of people who aren't upset by it and sympathize with their grievances. Even if I don't advocate for expressing those grievances with murder.
It's tough to see 12 random people thinking that health insurance companies are so evil that the murder is justified. I don't see the courts allowing the lawyer to bring up too much in the way of his business practices as any kind of justification.
About 54% of Americans have employer covered care(which in itself has to be one of the dumbest ways to provide health care in a society, but that's another rant) and 75% of those are happy with it. If I had to guess, it would be that a majority of those 75% have never had to deal with a major health issue.
So at least half of American jurists may not have a favorable view at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
As such, holding a CEO culpable for the ills of private health insurance isnt the right answer. It's wrong. That would be akin to murdering an oil CEO because you are concerned about climate change and lack of political will to address such issues.
If so, then the problem wasn't the action taken here, it was that the wrong person was held responsible... so... who SHOULD have taken the bullet?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
If so, then the problem wasn't the action taken here, it was that the wrong person was held responsible... so... who SHOULD have taken the bullet?
The company should take the bullet of nationalization. That's the right outcome imo. Force a buyout out the shareholders, transition the c-suite with buyouts of their own, and replace them with public administrators who can implement more equitable policies (less delay, deny, depose).
Equating it to climate change isn't the same thing. That is a global event affecting and being affected by everyone. It'd be more like killing an oil CEO who refused to pay out your family for the death of their father that occurred due to corporate negligence.
A healthcare CEO actively makes decisions that are letting people suffer and die over profit, sometimes when they are legally bound to pay out so they delay resolutions until the person is no longer an issue (ie dead). They can't even do it right for their own military vets. And they (the CEOs and other high level management) are specifically the people lobbying the government to not change laws or improve the system, thus neutering the political will. Are we going to act like there hasn't been peaceful attempts to fix their healthcare system? Like this just came out of the blue? People haven't been listened to for decades and someone finally snaps and everyone is just like "OH MY PEARLS!!! Well I NEVER!" It doesn't really matter if this individual "deserved it" or not. The outcome is entirely predictable and will only get worse if services don't start actually, you know, serving. We can all agree that shooting someone is an insane step while also understanding what made that person take such a drastic action.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
About 54% of Americans have employer covered care(which in itself has to be one of the dumbest ways to provide health care in a society, but that's another rant) and 75% of those are happy with it. If I had to guess, it would be that a majority of those 75% have never had to deal with a major health issue.
So at least half of American jurists may not have a favorable view at all.
About 40% will be on Medicaid, ACA, or Medicare, and those generally have high approval ratings as well. Yeah, they may well be happy until something goes wrong. On the flipside though, you tend to hear about other people at your company when they have a major health issue, and generally get a good feel for their insurance. I've had a handful of peers lose long bouts with cancer, and were always thankful for the insurance our organization provides.
The large majority being generally happy with their insurance is why nothing ever changes.
The company should take the bullet of nationalization. That's the right outcome imo. Force a buyout out the shareholders, transition the c-suite with buyouts of their own, and replace them with public administrators who can implement more equitable policies (less delay, deny, depose).
No buyouts. Confiscations. Losing your investment if you invest in predatory businesses is a risk to be borne by the investor. People lose their investments in ethical companies all the time. No reason to guarantee investments in unethical ones.
No buyouts. Confiscations. Losing your investment if you invest in predatory businesses is a risk to be borne by the investor. People lose their investments in ethical companies all the time. No reason to guarantee investments in unethical ones.
Aside from the fact that it's probably mostly held in regular people's retirement funds, without them probably even knowing, do we care about the 900,000+ health insurance workers that will lose their jobs?
Aside from the fact that it's probably mostly held in regular people's retirement funds, without them probably even knowing, do we care about the 900,000+ health insurance workers that will lose their jobs?
No. No! Absolutely not.
Health Care Insurance Workers? Scum of the Earth. If the Purge was real they'd be first in line.
They are the definition of "The call is coming from inside the house."
"Oh...you have Cancer...yeah thats not covered."
"You were born...pre-existing condition."
They should be rounded up and shot. Televised.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Aside from the fact that it's probably mostly held in regular people's retirement funds, without them probably even knowing, do we care about the 900,000+ health insurance workers that will lose their jobs?
I have always been against protecting jobs at all costs, but especially useless ones, and even moreso parasitic ones.
Do we care? Yes. That's why there's employment insurance, and why I advocate for UBI. I would also be fine with offering retraining. Do we keep a parasitic system running because we care about the employees? Heck no. They can do other things where they actually contribute to society if we release them from their parasitic jobs.
