4 ms·

I agree with you. But there are competitive advantages in a cutthroat industry to being unethical, so over time, it's mostly the bad actors that have the fatte

I agree with you. But there are competitive advantages in a cutthroat industry to being unethical, so over time, it's mostly the bad actors that have the fattest margins and can make plenty of money before getting caught. Just like any industry, people accept it because it's just what happens. So busy being a business owner that you cannot afford to be Sheriff.

Joeri 9y ago
You can make this argument for a lot of crimes: bank robberies are lucrative so over time more and more bad actors will become bank robbers. Except that doesn't happen because bank robbers are pursued vigorously. If there's a zero tolerance policy against drugs there should be a zero tolerance policy against people providing bogus care for drug addicts. Just like you can judge a society by how it treats its weak, you can judge it by which crimes it pursues vigorously and which ones it lets slide.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  The Medical/Pharmaceutical/"Therapy" have gotten away with too much shenanigans for way to long. They shouldn't get any more free passes on ethics violations. Ethics--yea something that used to exist, or did it? Not in my lifetime. The bastards can do whatever they wish. They can do practically anything. Right now I have one doctor who won't refill my prescription. A drug I have been on for a decade. He can't be bothered? I don't even care anymore. Just know it's all kinda wrong. So since they have been given a free licence to abuse the vulnerable, and uninformed for way to long; they need to pay for their Art of whatever. A good first start would be legalizing all Drugs except antibiotics. If people want to kill themselves by self diagnoses--so be it. I really use to have so much respect for anyone involved in healing professions. Now--they just look like people who want to take my money. Ironically, I wanted to be one of them, but deep down inside knew so much of it was a fraud. (And we all didn't care when the insurance was covering the bill. It's all changed now.)
- hueving 9y ago
  >If there's a zero tolerance policy against drugs there should be a zero tolerance policy against people providing bogus care for drug addicts. Unlike the bank robbery case, it gets difficult to tell the difference between incompetence and intentionally crappy care. Nobody accidentally robs a bank because they were poorly trained. This makes it harder to have a government policy of charging everyone with a felony that provided poor care.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The US spends tens of billions of dollars a year on substance abuse treatment. In that context $58 million of fraud could be taken as evidence of fairly vigorous pursuit.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  It doesn't happen because bank robberies are not lucrative. The expected outcome is negative, since the chance of getting caught is too high, or the loot is too low. You can change either of those things, and it's much easier to change the second one, especially in an era when most money isn't physically present in the bank anyway.
- ada1981 9y ago
  Also, unlike bank robbery which is usually committed by poor folks, insurance fraud of this type is a white collar crime committed by (typically white) wealthy folks. I was watching an old George Carlin video on the death penalty yesterday. He was ranting about how folks want to expand the death penalty for drug dealers. His bit was that you should expand the death penalty for the bankers who launder the money and the drug trade would pretty much stop immediately.

Joeri 9y ago

You can make this argument for a lot of crimes: bank robberies are lucrative so over time more and more bad actors will become bank robbers. Except that doesn't happen because bank robbers are pursued vigorously. If there's a zero tolerance policy against drugs there should be a zero tolerance policy against people providing bogus care for drug addicts. Just like you can judge a society by how it treats its weak, you can judge it by which crimes it pursues vigorously and which ones it lets slide.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icantdrive55 9y ago
The Medical/Pharmaceutical/"Therapy" have gotten away with too much shenanigans for way to long. They shouldn't get any more free passes on ethics violations. Ethics--yea something that used to exist, or did it? Not in my lifetime. The bastards can do whatever they wish. They can do practically anything. Right now I have one doctor who won't refill my prescription. A drug I have been on for a decade. He can't be bothered? I don't even care anymore. Just know it's all kinda wrong. So since they have been given a free licence to abuse the vulnerable, and uninformed for way to long; they need to pay for their Art of whatever. A good first start would be legalizing all Drugs except antibiotics. If people want to kill themselves by self diagnoses--so be it. I really use to have so much respect for anyone involved in healing professions. Now--they just look like people who want to take my money. Ironically, I wanted to be one of them, but deep down inside knew so much of it was a fraud. (And we all didn't care when the insurance was covering the bill. It's all changed now.)
hueving 9y ago
>If there's a zero tolerance policy against drugs there should be a zero tolerance policy against people providing bogus care for drug addicts. Unlike the bank robbery case, it gets difficult to tell the difference between incompetence and intentionally crappy care. Nobody accidentally robs a bank because they were poorly trained. This makes it harder to have a government policy of charging everyone with a felony that provided poor care.
maxerickson 9y ago
The US spends tens of billions of dollars a year on substance abuse treatment. In that context $58 million of fraud could be taken as evidence of fairly vigorous pursuit.
literallycancer 9y ago
It doesn't happen because bank robberies are not lucrative. The expected outcome is negative, since the chance of getting caught is too high, or the loot is too low. You can change either of those things, and it's much easier to change the second one, especially in an era when most money isn't physically present in the bank anyway.
ada1981 9y ago
Also, unlike bank robbery which is usually committed by poor folks, insurance fraud of this type is a white collar crime committed by (typically white) wealthy folks. I was watching an old George Carlin video on the death penalty yesterday. He was ranting about how folks want to expand the death penalty for drug dealers. His bit was that you should expand the death penalty for the bankers who launder the money and the drug trade would pretty much stop immediately.