4 ms·

Lancet estimated 68,000 lives a year might be saved moving to a single payer system: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673619330193 htt

Lancet estimated 68,000 lives a year might be saved moving to a single payer system: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673619330193 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01406... Surely not all that blood is on the hands of the CEO, or even UHC. But everyone has either been denied claims or knows someone that has, through some of the most disgusting treatment witnessable from corporate america. It'd be one thing if you were denied a claim for.... any variety of reasons that follow from the inherent difficulty of managing health insurance as many countries can attest to. But overriding doctor concerns to withhold funding for necessary treatment and withholding as much as possible while raking in profits leaves people with very bitter tastes in their mouths. Mine included: I'm paying for a medical procedure for a friend next week because her insurance won't cover anesthesia and she can't afford the out of pocket. I had multiple relatives die much sooner than they had to because they were denied funding for critical medication. I've had multiple friends talk about "rationing insulin" (thankfully, both times referring to the past). And naturally healthcare interests—UHC included—lobby both parties heavily, so there's a lot of incentive to continue ignoring the elephant in the room.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
The job of health insurance is to vet and deny claims. Their pay is regulated and capped by law as a percent of benefits. The fewer benefits they provide, the less they make. This is the system Americans have chosen. Im not saying its the best or shouldnt be improved. Im for a public option, but there will still be rationing and denial of care. people will still die.
- scarecrowbob 2y ago
  I didn't choose it, it was chosen for me. And you can say "that's democracy", but it doesn't change the fact that "Americans have chosen" is wildly different than saying "I have chosen" and has radically different and wide-spread implications. "People will still die" is the kind of thing narcissists and sociopaths tell themselves when they are pretty sure that the set of "people" does not include themselves.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  > The job of health insurance is to vet and deny claims. It would be nice if they did that consistently and fairly, but they don’t. Using an AI to review and deny claims with a (claimed) 90% error rate or denying claims without reading them is not vetting, it’s straight up negligence and fraud. https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate-forces-elderly-out-of-rehab-nursing-homes-suit-claims/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate... https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health...
- hulitu 2y ago
  > This is the system Americans have chosen Some (few) of them. In EU it is different.
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    > Some (few) of them. The majority of American voters have chosen this system multiple times, and have voted for a president who has explicitly said he'll make this system worse by repealing the ACA. He almost did it the first time, too, and it only failed by one vote. Maybe this UHC CEO event will get more people talking about healthcare, and ultimately get more people voting for candidates who want to improve the system next time around. I support a public option, so I hope it does. But I won't hold my breath.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      >has explicitly said he'll make this system worse by repealing the ACA. No, he has literally said he would replace it with something better. This is a lie, obviously. But you can't then assume the people who voted for him were voting for the system to be worse. Some fraction of them are likely desperately hoping it gets better and have just had their desperation taken advantage of.
      - nozzlegear 2y ago
        Good point, he didn't campaign on making the system worse and the way I phrased that made it sound like he did. He campaigned on repealing the ACA and replacing it with something better. > But you can't then assume the people who voted for him were voting for the system to be worse. At least in 2016, some of his voters that I knew personally just wanted the ACA to be gone and to have "freeloaders" kicked off of the system. They weren't voting to make it worse for themselves, per se, but voted vindictively to make it worse for others.
- kmoser 2y ago
  > This is the system Americans have chosen. Said more accurately: this is the system chosen for Americans, against many of their wishes, by the officials some of them elected.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- EliRivers 2y ago
  Sure, that's the insurance company itself. One way around that is for the insurance company to own the medical providers they send people to, allowing them to keep more of the premiums by cycling them around other companies. United Health has been doing these "intercompany eliminations" for years, trailblazing this method of keeping ever more of the premiums.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

The job of health insurance is to vet and deny claims. Their pay is regulated and capped by law as a percent of benefits. The fewer benefits they provide, the less they make. This is the system Americans have chosen. Im not saying its the best or shouldnt be improved. Im for a public option, but there will still be rationing and denial of care. people will still die.

scarecrowbob 2y ago
I didn't choose it, it was chosen for me. And you can say "that's democracy", but it doesn't change the fact that "Americans have chosen" is wildly different than saying "I have chosen" and has radically different and wide-spread implications. "People will still die" is the kind of thing narcissists and sociopaths tell themselves when they are pretty sure that the set of "people" does not include themselves.
quickthrowman 2y ago
> The job of health insurance is to vet and deny claims. It would be nice if they did that consistently and fairly, but they don’t. Using an AI to review and deny claims with a (claimed) 90% error rate or denying claims without reading them is not vetting, it’s straight up negligence and fraud. https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate-forces-elderly-out-of-rehab-nursing-homes-suit-claims/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate... https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health...
hulitu 2y ago
> This is the system Americans have chosen Some (few) of them. In EU it is different.
- nozzlegear 2y ago
  > Some (few) of them. The majority of American voters have chosen this system multiple times, and have voted for a president who has explicitly said he'll make this system worse by repealing the ACA. He almost did it the first time, too, and it only failed by one vote. Maybe this UHC CEO event will get more people talking about healthcare, and ultimately get more people voting for candidates who want to improve the system next time around. I support a public option, so I hope it does. But I won't hold my breath.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    >has explicitly said he'll make this system worse by repealing the ACA. No, he has literally said he would replace it with something better. This is a lie, obviously. But you can't then assume the people who voted for him were voting for the system to be worse. Some fraction of them are likely desperately hoping it gets better and have just had their desperation taken advantage of.
    - nozzlegear 2y ago
      Good point, he didn't campaign on making the system worse and the way I phrased that made it sound like he did. He campaigned on repealing the ACA and replacing it with something better. > But you can't then assume the people who voted for him were voting for the system to be worse. At least in 2016, some of his voters that I knew personally just wanted the ACA to be gone and to have "freeloaders" kicked off of the system. They weren't voting to make it worse for themselves, per se, but voted vindictively to make it worse for others.
kmoser 2y ago
> This is the system Americans have chosen. Said more accurately: this is the system chosen for Americans, against many of their wishes, by the officials some of them elected.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
EliRivers 2y ago
Sure, that's the insurance company itself. One way around that is for the insurance company to own the medical providers they send people to, allowing them to keep more of the premiums by cycling them around other companies. United Health has been doing these "intercompany eliminations" for years, trailblazing this method of keeping ever more of the premiums.