3 ms·

I strongly disagree with how this is presented. Doing half-assed or even passionate work for greedy insurance companies is not a horrible thing to do. Not think

I strongly disagree with how this is presented. Doing half-assed or even passionate work for greedy insurance companies is not a horrible thing to do. Not thinking of how these companies can be reigned in and acting accordingly is far worse. We need to stop offloading moral responsibility from the people in charge to the regulae folks.

archerx 3y ago
They are all complicit, the people in charge have no power without their underlings.
uoaei 3y ago
They accepted the role and fulfilled the duties that were asked of them by the company. They had all the chances to intervene or divest before such a model made it to production.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
This horrendous behavior of health insurance companies in the U.S. is widely understood, reported on, and documented to cause harm and death. If you choose to work for them, you’re of the same ilk of people who work for pyramid schemes and arms manufacturers.
lispisok 3y ago
Health insurance companies have a long and documented history of doing horrible horrible things. Are you really saying the rank and file at health insurance companies who are collecting middle class salaries at a white collar job denying people's claims for an MRI for a possible brain tumor have no moral responsibility? If you can't start with being the change you want to see in the world there is no hope
- HellDunkel 3y ago
  I think the rank and file at health insurance companies need to be held accountable when breaking the law. The law itself must be designed in a way to prevent such behavior eg.: Any action such as trying to deny medical service or outsource decision making into a gray zone such as ai shall be punished hard- also on an individual level. It is utterly unnecessary to discuss the individuals moral obligations or to start another meta discussion on capitalism. This type of reasoning is extremly harmful as it deflects the needed discussion about the law. You probably agree with me. It just struck me that our misunderstanding comes from the different approaches europe and the us are following. While we tend to make up rules in advance, the american strategy is often about giving the market more options and having it regulate itself by class action lawsuites down the line. When we talk about health you must admit the „free market“ strategy has failed and europe is doing a far better job.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
kelipso 3y ago
Haha, literally "I was just following orders" argument.
heavyset_go 3y ago
Moral responsibility exists on both ends, but it's amplified by agency. Those in charge have more agency to make their own decisions, and those at the bottom have less agency because they need to eat. That doesn't completely absolve them of responsibility for their own actions, even if their options are limited in scope. If your job is to make people's lives worse, at some point you need to take responsibility for choosing to do that job anyway. Very few of the people actually implementing models like this are without options when it comes to providing for themselves in ways that don't cause harm.

archerx 3y ago

They are all complicit, the people in charge have no power without their underlings.

uoaei 3y ago

They accepted the role and fulfilled the duties that were asked of them by the company. They had all the chances to intervene or divest before such a model made it to production.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

This horrendous behavior of health insurance companies in the U.S. is widely understood, reported on, and documented to cause harm and death. If you choose to work for them, you’re of the same ilk of people who work for pyramid schemes and arms manufacturers.

lispisok 3y ago

Health insurance companies have a long and documented history of doing horrible horrible things. Are you really saying the rank and file at health insurance companies who are collecting middle class salaries at a white collar job denying people's claims for an MRI for a possible brain tumor have no moral responsibility? If you can't start with being the change you want to see in the world there is no hope

HellDunkel 3y ago
I think the rank and file at health insurance companies need to be held accountable when breaking the law. The law itself must be designed in a way to prevent such behavior eg.: Any action such as trying to deny medical service or outsource decision making into a gray zone such as ai shall be punished hard- also on an individual level. It is utterly unnecessary to discuss the individuals moral obligations or to start another meta discussion on capitalism. This type of reasoning is extremly harmful as it deflects the needed discussion about the law. You probably agree with me. It just struck me that our misunderstanding comes from the different approaches europe and the us are following. While we tend to make up rules in advance, the american strategy is often about giving the market more options and having it regulate itself by class action lawsuites down the line. When we talk about health you must admit the „free market“ strategy has failed and europe is doing a far better job.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

kelipso 3y ago

Haha, literally "I was just following orders" argument.

heavyset_go 3y ago

Moral responsibility exists on both ends, but it's amplified by agency. Those in charge have more agency to make their own decisions, and those at the bottom have less agency because they need to eat. That doesn't completely absolve them of responsibility for their own actions, even if their options are limited in scope. If your job is to make people's lives worse, at some point you need to take responsibility for choosing to do that job anyway. Very few of the people actually implementing models like this are without options when it comes to providing for themselves in ways that don't cause harm.