5 ms·

The events of the last week are just what happens when a company decides to refuse to meet its customers in the marketplace of sane ideas. You could probably h

The events of the last week are just what happens when a company decides to refuse to meet its customers in the marketplace of sane ideas. You could probably have gotten away with what UNH did if the money wasn't so ridiculous. Thompson himself had a compensation package worth $10.2 million[0] a year. It's reasonable to think that other c-suiters at the company, along with those of its parent organization, made similar amounts of money. The company also has a 1.53% dividend yield[1]. The average American's lifetime earnings are $1.8 million for men, and $1.1 million for women[2]. That is to say, within five years, Mr. Thompson would likely have made ten times the average American's lifetime economic output, post-tax. If you're paying a significant chunk of your yearly earnings to be covered by UNH, you expect the money you paid to go towards providing you with service. Instead, tens of millions of it goes towards a handful of individuals, and regardless of how the company does financially, participants in the equities market will get some of your money, and you'll possibly be denied the service you paid for in order to make that happen. People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't. People with severe health problems or loved ones with severe health problems aren't asking these executives or shareholders to live like paupers; they just expect the service they paid for. When there's something as life-ruining as chronic health conditions dogging you every single day, there's a chance you snap, and in the US, there's fairly trivial access to tools to help you do that. [0] https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/health-news/the-salary-bonuses-and-stock-options-of-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson/ar-AA1virIv https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/health-news/the-salary-bonu... [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/unh/dividend-history https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/unh/dividend-h... [2] https://www.theknowlesgroup.org/blog/average-american-lifetime-earnings/#:~:text=According%20to%20research%20published%20by,an%20overall%20average%20median%20lifetime https://www.theknowlesgroup.org/blog/average-american-lifeti...

quitit 2y ago
>People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't. In other countries there are private health funds that return all of their profits to their members by simply covering more types of care and lowering premiums, all while still giving their staff very good, very attractive pay. That is clearly a win:win setting without being a government-run entity. A person doesn't need to earn 100M-200M in a decade of company service. That is an obscene amount of money, and merely opportunistic payment from a system where the foxes are guarding the hen house. Unfortunately the US health system has this pattern repeated through it from insurers, to hospitals and beyond - the money is being funnel to those which can minimise, not optimise, care.
- peitho_pls 2y ago
  This article is about someone getting cutting edge care beyond medical literature from the one of the leading experts in the world. I've got to imagine most health funds would simply not be able to cover that type of care for an individual?
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    Not sure why this is being downvoted. Universal healthcare is great, but even if you're in Sweden they're not going to fly you over to Minnesota to get experimental treatment that costs $1M/year.
    - tredre3 2y ago
      It's likely downvoted because it's irrelevant. Very few (if any) private plans in the US would cover it either.
      - teractiveodular 2y ago
        Some plans, like the one in the article, obviously do. This is the paradox of US healthcare: it's probably the most advanced in the world if you/your insurer can foot the bill, but that's an enormous if.
        quitit 2y ago
        The problem is that the profit making side of the business is becoming dominant. There will always be room for experimental procedures even if the US saw regulation that limited the profit-making abilities of health insurers. The situation at the moment is that routine, basic medicine is being denied, often algorithmically, along with "pharmabro" types buying up basic medications for the sole purpose of increasing its price. That's starkly different from the development of novel medications demanding high prices to reward R&D efforts.
    - astrolx 2y ago
rqtwteye 2y ago
Your first sentence is already wrong. With employer based insurance the company is the customer. The patient is the product.
- criddell 2y ago
  Tens of millions of people are buying insurance through the ACA directly from companies like United.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    And more should do so. Employer based insurance should be abolished. I would also close the VA. One health system for all
- jay_kyburz 2y ago
  As an Australian, I have no idea, but can't then a patient sue their employer if they don't receive the care they were promised? Doesn't that make the employer responsible for an employees health? I can guess the answer.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    "Sue"? What a quaint notion. Mandatory binding arbitration is what you can get now.
    - losthalo 2y ago
      And if you win it might take so long that you're already dead by then.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
internet101010 2y ago
Yeah even with "good insurance", there is a high likelihood that getting cancer will mean someone's life savings will be vaporized and replaced with bankruptcy levels of medical debt. People spend their adult life paying for future use of a product every two weeks. Then when it comes time to use said product the seller tells them no. Meanwhile, the company they paid all of this money to posts record net income and its executives make millions of dollars per year. They scare people away from socialized medicine with phrases like "death panels" while in the same breath boast about using AI to automatically deny healthcare for their customers. It's so gross and reprehensible.
- belter 2y ago
  > even with "good insurance", there is a high likelihood that getting cancer will mean someone's life savings will be vaporized and replaced with bankruptcy levels of medical debt Only in the US....
peitho_pls 2y ago
> People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't Out of curiosity, What makes you think executive compensation can be easily cut? Wouldn't the shareholders happily do that if they could?
- laimewhisps 2y ago
  If it becomes a risk to the CEO to have high compensation, then yes the shareholders will want a cut.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  I don't think it can be easily cut. You have a bunch of free riders (shareholders) who are insuring that their person of choice puts them first by showering them with compensation packages. There's lots of people on that gravy train.
avn2109 2y ago
By far the most interesting aspect of this tale is the sudden rush of evidence (news stories, internet videos etc) that insurers have abruptly started paying claims which were previously denied or mired in paperwork. The comments of e.g. [0] and [1] are filled with people claiming this. The system is clearly rattled by the appearance of the people's justice, in a "Let them eat cake" kinda way, and is trying to make a sudden show of not being so rapacious and unjust. [0] mhttps://www.tiktok.com/@theredcoquette/video/7445423084850498847?_r=1&_t=8s0UTkEonq2 https://www.tiktok.com/@theredcoquette/video/744542308485049... [1] https://www.tiktok.com/@joysparkleshine/video/7446083806882221358 https://www.tiktok.com/@joysparkleshine/video/74460838068822... [2] https://www.wfsb.com/2024/12/05/anthem-backtracks-anesthesiology-cap-policy-ct/ https://www.wfsb.com/2024/12/05/anthem-backtracks-anesthesio...
- no_wizard 2y ago
  This is an argument for the public to keep up the pressure. Perhaps it’s time for cleaners to clean
  - not_your_mentat 2y ago
    How much do you want to bet life insurance policies will start getting prejudicial about policy holders being executives at health insurance carriers?
    - plagiarist 2y ago
      Would be schadenfreude to see life insurance denied on the basis of preexisting careers.
benmmurphy 2y ago
We don't have an infinite supply of health care and there is a strong demand so there is always going to be some form of rationing going on. There are always going to be people with chronic life ruining conditions that are going to get a raw deal under whatever system you propose to distribute the limited supply of healthcare. It seems like someone is always going to have a justification to kill someone whether its a CEO or some faceless bureaucrat.
- DougN7 2y ago
  That’s true, but UHC alone has $6 BILLION in profit each _quarter_. A whole lot of that could be going towards health care. In my opinion health insurance providers should not be for-profit.
- wat10000 2y ago
  There’s a huge difference between the inevitable random crazies driven to madness because they can’t handle their unfortunate but unavoidable circumstances, and abusing the entire population on such a scale that when someone murders an executive in broad daylight, the prevailing public mood is “serves him right.”
  - vacuity 2y ago
    If (according to some) a woman wearing revealing clothes deserves to be raped, and (to most, hopefully) a drunk driver deserves imprisonment and paying any victims, what does someone who has knowingly and intentionally participated in a scheme leading to the deaths of thousands and suffering of millions for personal profit deserve? I myself don't agree to the death penalty or any killing if it doesn't serve to thwart an immediate and severe danger. We shall take it as a given that this killing doesn't fall under the latter, or perhaps even a somewhat more generous definition. But at the same time, it would be infeasible to have the CEO "brought to justice". To have him sentenced in court, his assets paid out, and the company reformed. Between nothing at all happening (except protests) and the CEO being killed, which is the better choice? If, all else being equal, you could choose one world or the other, which choice is better?
mrangle 2y ago
> just what happens It's not "just what happens". That's a politically opportunistic narrative that seeks to incite violence and murder. No one knows why the CEO was killed. None of this type of reasoning justifies or begins to explain the murder even if this were the reason in the shooter's head. Morals aside, it's nonsensical reasoning in total. You're justifying and providing propaganda support for domestic terrorism in the United States.
- laimewhisps 2y ago
  They printed "defend", "deny", "depose" on the bullets so it's reasonable to assume that was the motive.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    [flagged]
- inejge 2y ago
  > No one knows why the CEO was killed. Whatever the shooter's motive was, you can't deny that the public mood is ugly. There was scarcely any sympathy for Thompson, just an avalanche of gleeful mockery and complaints about healthcare claim handling. The problems are widespread enough that having someone snap because, say, their parents' claims have been denied, is completely believable.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > The gleeful mockery is largely from anonymous accounts. I remember when the same type of thing was attributed to "Russian bots" after the 2016 election. I worked in medical-adjacent areas for a decade. I dated a doctor, and I asked him what people feel in his hospital about that. He said that basically NOBODY has any sympathy for this CEO. The most concern is at the level of "we shouldn't condone murders". And you don't see even uglier statements because people are very much aware of medical ethics boards. And that's an opinion from a highly-paid medical professional.
gruez 2y ago
>The company also has a 1.53% dividend yield[1]. I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low? >If you're paying a significant chunk of your yearly earnings to be covered by UNH, you expect the money you paid to go towards providing you with service. Instead, tens of millions of it goes towards a handful of individuals UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year. "tens of millions" is a rounding error.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  > I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low? Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner. > UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year. "tens of millions" is a rounding error. "Tens of millions" is in reference to the cost of their higher-ups' compensation.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner. Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders. I don't think either the anti-buybacks or the anti-dividend side has a point though. Anyone doing a modicum of finance analysis would be able subtract the value of the dividends paid from the share price, or factor it into the price of the company. Indeed, you see that share prices in companies dip after the dividend ex date, which suggests the market takes this information into account.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      > Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders Nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders at the expense of workers and customers, at least not as transparently as it is done now. Wages have remained flat in the US for several decades now. It’s starting to have a real impact on the economic and social conditions of the country. “But what about the shareholders?” isn’t going to be a valid excuse to someone who pays for coverage against medical costs. There is no economic system, or business model within said system, in which there is unlimited value to be transferred. Humans will assert their rights at some point or another.
trilbyglens 2y ago
A-fucking-men Preach brother
kaonwarb 2y ago
Targeted killings of civilians are not "just what happens." Please do not normalize premeditated murder, even if the culprit has good cause to be extremely angry.

quitit 2y ago

>People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't. In other countries there are private health funds that return all of their profits to their members by simply covering more types of care and lowering premiums, all while still giving their staff very good, very attractive pay. That is clearly a win:win setting without being a government-run entity. A person doesn't need to earn 100M-200M in a decade of company service. That is an obscene amount of money, and merely opportunistic payment from a system where the foxes are guarding the hen house. Unfortunately the US health system has this pattern repeated through it from insurers, to hospitals and beyond - the money is being funnel to those which can minimise, not optimise, care.

peitho_pls 2y ago
This article is about someone getting cutting edge care beyond medical literature from the one of the leading experts in the world. I've got to imagine most health funds would simply not be able to cover that type of care for an individual?
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  Not sure why this is being downvoted. Universal healthcare is great, but even if you're in Sweden they're not going to fly you over to Minnesota to get experimental treatment that costs $1M/year.
  - tredre3 2y ago
    It's likely downvoted because it's irrelevant. Very few (if any) private plans in the US would cover it either.
    - teractiveodular 2y ago
      Some plans, like the one in the article, obviously do. This is the paradox of US healthcare: it's probably the most advanced in the world if you/your insurer can foot the bill, but that's an enormous if.
      - quitit 2y ago
        The problem is that the profit making side of the business is becoming dominant. There will always be room for experimental procedures even if the US saw regulation that limited the profit-making abilities of health insurers. The situation at the moment is that routine, basic medicine is being denied, often algorithmically, along with "pharmabro" types buying up basic medications for the sole purpose of increasing its price. That's starkly different from the development of novel medications demanding high prices to reward R&D efforts.
  - astrolx 2y ago

rqtwteye 2y ago

Your first sentence is already wrong. With employer based insurance the company is the customer. The patient is the product.

criddell 2y ago
Tens of millions of people are buying insurance through the ACA directly from companies like United.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  And more should do so. Employer based insurance should be abolished. I would also close the VA. One health system for all
jay_kyburz 2y ago
As an Australian, I have no idea, but can't then a patient sue their employer if they don't receive the care they were promised? Doesn't that make the employer responsible for an employees health? I can guess the answer.
- cyberax 2y ago
  "Sue"? What a quaint notion. Mandatory binding arbitration is what you can get now.
  - losthalo 2y ago
    And if you win it might take so long that you're already dead by then.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

internet101010 2y ago

Yeah even with "good insurance", there is a high likelihood that getting cancer will mean someone's life savings will be vaporized and replaced with bankruptcy levels of medical debt. People spend their adult life paying for future use of a product every two weeks. Then when it comes time to use said product the seller tells them no. Meanwhile, the company they paid all of this money to posts record net income and its executives make millions of dollars per year. They scare people away from socialized medicine with phrases like "death panels" while in the same breath boast about using AI to automatically deny healthcare for their customers. It's so gross and reprehensible.

belter 2y ago
> even with "good insurance", there is a high likelihood that getting cancer will mean someone's life savings will be vaporized and replaced with bankruptcy levels of medical debt Only in the US....

peitho_pls 2y ago

> People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't Out of curiosity, What makes you think executive compensation can be easily cut? Wouldn't the shareholders happily do that if they could?

laimewhisps 2y ago
If it becomes a risk to the CEO to have high compensation, then yes the shareholders will want a cut.
lenerdenator 2y ago
I don't think it can be easily cut. You have a bunch of free riders (shareholders) who are insuring that their person of choice puts them first by showering them with compensation packages. There's lots of people on that gravy train.

avn2109 2y ago

By far the most interesting aspect of this tale is the sudden rush of evidence (news stories, internet videos etc) that insurers have abruptly started paying claims which were previously denied or mired in paperwork. The comments of e.g. [0] and [1] are filled with people claiming this. The system is clearly rattled by the appearance of the people's justice, in a "Let them eat cake" kinda way, and is trying to make a sudden show of not being so rapacious and unjust. [0] mhttps://www.tiktok.com/@theredcoquette/video/7445423084850498847?_r=1&_t=8s0UTkEonq2 https://www.tiktok.com/@theredcoquette/video/744542308485049... [1] https://www.tiktok.com/@joysparkleshine/video/7446083806882221358 https://www.tiktok.com/@joysparkleshine/video/74460838068822... [2] https://www.wfsb.com/2024/12/05/anthem-backtracks-anesthesiology-cap-policy-ct/ https://www.wfsb.com/2024/12/05/anthem-backtracks-anesthesio...

no_wizard 2y ago
This is an argument for the public to keep up the pressure. Perhaps it’s time for cleaners to clean
- not_your_mentat 2y ago
  How much do you want to bet life insurance policies will start getting prejudicial about policy holders being executives at health insurance carriers?
  - plagiarist 2y ago
    Would be schadenfreude to see life insurance denied on the basis of preexisting careers.

benmmurphy 2y ago

We don't have an infinite supply of health care and there is a strong demand so there is always going to be some form of rationing going on. There are always going to be people with chronic life ruining conditions that are going to get a raw deal under whatever system you propose to distribute the limited supply of healthcare. It seems like someone is always going to have a justification to kill someone whether its a CEO or some faceless bureaucrat.

DougN7 2y ago
That’s true, but UHC alone has $6 BILLION in profit each _quarter_. A whole lot of that could be going towards health care. In my opinion health insurance providers should not be for-profit.
wat10000 2y ago
There’s a huge difference between the inevitable random crazies driven to madness because they can’t handle their unfortunate but unavoidable circumstances, and abusing the entire population on such a scale that when someone murders an executive in broad daylight, the prevailing public mood is “serves him right.”
- vacuity 2y ago
  If (according to some) a woman wearing revealing clothes deserves to be raped, and (to most, hopefully) a drunk driver deserves imprisonment and paying any victims, what does someone who has knowingly and intentionally participated in a scheme leading to the deaths of thousands and suffering of millions for personal profit deserve? I myself don't agree to the death penalty or any killing if it doesn't serve to thwart an immediate and severe danger. We shall take it as a given that this killing doesn't fall under the latter, or perhaps even a somewhat more generous definition. But at the same time, it would be infeasible to have the CEO "brought to justice". To have him sentenced in court, his assets paid out, and the company reformed. Between nothing at all happening (except protests) and the CEO being killed, which is the better choice? If, all else being equal, you could choose one world or the other, which choice is better?

mrangle 2y ago

> just what happens It's not "just what happens". That's a politically opportunistic narrative that seeks to incite violence and murder. No one knows why the CEO was killed. None of this type of reasoning justifies or begins to explain the murder even if this were the reason in the shooter's head. Morals aside, it's nonsensical reasoning in total. You're justifying and providing propaganda support for domestic terrorism in the United States.

laimewhisps 2y ago
They printed "defend", "deny", "depose" on the bullets so it's reasonable to assume that was the motive.
- mrangle 2y ago
  [flagged]
inejge 2y ago
> No one knows why the CEO was killed. Whatever the shooter's motive was, you can't deny that the public mood is ugly. There was scarcely any sympathy for Thompson, just an avalanche of gleeful mockery and complaints about healthcare claim handling. The problems are widespread enough that having someone snap because, say, their parents' claims have been denied, is completely believable.
- mrangle 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > The gleeful mockery is largely from anonymous accounts. I remember when the same type of thing was attributed to "Russian bots" after the 2016 election. I worked in medical-adjacent areas for a decade. I dated a doctor, and I asked him what people feel in his hospital about that. He said that basically NOBODY has any sympathy for this CEO. The most concern is at the level of "we shouldn't condone murders". And you don't see even uglier statements because people are very much aware of medical ethics boards. And that's an opinion from a highly-paid medical professional.

gruez 2y ago

>The company also has a 1.53% dividend yield[1]. I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low? >If you're paying a significant chunk of your yearly earnings to be covered by UNH, you expect the money you paid to go towards providing you with service. Instead, tens of millions of it goes towards a handful of individuals UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year. "tens of millions" is a rounding error.

lenerdenator 2y ago
> I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low? Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner. > UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year. "tens of millions" is a rounding error. "Tens of millions" is in reference to the cost of their higher-ups' compensation.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner. Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders. I don't think either the anti-buybacks or the anti-dividend side has a point though. Anyone doing a modicum of finance analysis would be able subtract the value of the dividends paid from the share price, or factor it into the price of the company. Indeed, you see that share prices in companies dip after the dividend ex date, which suggests the market takes this information into account.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    > Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders Nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders at the expense of workers and customers, at least not as transparently as it is done now. Wages have remained flat in the US for several decades now. It’s starting to have a real impact on the economic and social conditions of the country. “But what about the shareholders?” isn’t going to be a valid excuse to someone who pays for coverage against medical costs. There is no economic system, or business model within said system, in which there is unlimited value to be transferred. Humans will assert their rights at some point or another.

trilbyglens 2y ago

A-fucking-men Preach brother

kaonwarb 2y ago

Targeted killings of civilians are not "just what happens." Please do not normalize premeditated murder, even if the culprit has good cause to be extremely angry.