5 ms·

All of those are extremely different situations, so what are you getting at?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I see them as essentially the same. All of these people are choosing their financial interests over your health. People are dying from their inaction.
- vundercind 2y ago
  I can’t begin to relate to seeing someone with a median income failing to donate to some particular go-fund-me as the same as choosing to head an organization that makes more money when people don’t get the health care they need, and overseeing operations that did that even more recklessly than the industry standard. One has taken on a business relationship already and is taking people’s money then screwing them, at a mass scale. The other just didn’t donate to a gofundme that may not even be legit and for someone they have no connection to. Similar reaction for the other examples. I’m baffled that they look similar to anybody at all. [edit] hold on, ok, another angle that may clear up why I’m confused: if my health insurer denies my legit claim, should I be more, less, or equally angry with the leadership of that company, or with every single person in the country who fails to donate to my resulting gofundme? I’m immediately inclined to wish horrible things on one of these groups, and to find the idea of wishing horrible things on the other confusing and repulsive.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    There are laws enacted by our elected government (Democrats under Obama) that say exactly how much overhead is acceptable for a health insurance company, and all business expenses and CEO pay comes out of that portion. If they collect too much in premiums to and their profits exceed that percent, they have to refund the insurance members. Health insurance has a fixed profit margin on claims paid. Denying claims costs them money. Pay 10 billion in claims and they make 2 billion. Deny half the claims and they make half as much. look up that ACA 85/15 law
    - justinclift 2y ago
      Not sure how this is relevant?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Because they arent murdering or killing people to make money. The less they pay out, the less they make. Because there is a clear legal understanding of how much profit is acceptable.
        justinclift 2y ago
        > Because they arent murdering or killing people to make money. Ahhh. I guess you're not aware of stuff like this? https://www.newsweek.com/hospitals-are-reporting-more-insurance-denials-ai-driving-them-1977706 https://www.newsweek.com/hospitals-are-reporting-more-insura...
        tptacek 2y ago
        This is the second time on this thread you've pasted this Newsweek link as a rebuttal. I don't understand why you think it rebuts either argument.
        justinclift 2y ago
        Does this one help illustrate the problem? https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/15/unitedhealthcare_ai_medicine/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/15/unitedhealthcare_ai_m...
        tptacek 2y ago
        What "problem"? You're not being clear about what you're trying to say. That a particular insurer has done bad things? Nobody was going to take the other side of that argument.
        2y ago

I see them as essentially the same. All of these people are choosing their financial interests over your health. People are dying from their inaction.

vundercind 2y ago
I can’t begin to relate to seeing someone with a median income failing to donate to some particular go-fund-me as the same as choosing to head an organization that makes more money when people don’t get the health care they need, and overseeing operations that did that even more recklessly than the industry standard. One has taken on a business relationship already and is taking people’s money then screwing them, at a mass scale. The other just didn’t donate to a gofundme that may not even be legit and for someone they have no connection to. Similar reaction for the other examples. I’m baffled that they look similar to anybody at all. [edit] hold on, ok, another angle that may clear up why I’m confused: if my health insurer denies my legit claim, should I be more, less, or equally angry with the leadership of that company, or with every single person in the country who fails to donate to my resulting gofundme? I’m immediately inclined to wish horrible things on one of these groups, and to find the idea of wishing horrible things on the other confusing and repulsive.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  There are laws enacted by our elected government (Democrats under Obama) that say exactly how much overhead is acceptable for a health insurance company, and all business expenses and CEO pay comes out of that portion. If they collect too much in premiums to and their profits exceed that percent, they have to refund the insurance members. Health insurance has a fixed profit margin on claims paid. Denying claims costs them money. Pay 10 billion in claims and they make 2 billion. Deny half the claims and they make half as much. look up that ACA 85/15 law
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Not sure how this is relevant?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Because they arent murdering or killing people to make money. The less they pay out, the less they make. Because there is a clear legal understanding of how much profit is acceptable.
      - justinclift 2y ago
        > Because they arent murdering or killing people to make money. Ahhh. I guess you're not aware of stuff like this? https://www.newsweek.com/hospitals-are-reporting-more-insurance-denials-ai-driving-them-1977706 https://www.newsweek.com/hospitals-are-reporting-more-insura...
        tptacek 2y ago
        This is the second time on this thread you've pasted this Newsweek link as a rebuttal. I don't understand why you think it rebuts either argument.
        justinclift 2y ago
        Does this one help illustrate the problem? https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/15/unitedhealthcare_ai_medicine/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/15/unitedhealthcare_ai_m...
        tptacek 2y ago
        What "problem"? You're not being clear about what you're trying to say. That a particular insurer has done bad things? Nobody was going to take the other side of that argument.
        2y ago