4 ms·

"CEOs don’t want to live in a world where they go to their son’s baseball game and there must be security present," I have a pretty easy solution for that, but

"CEOs don’t want to live in a world where they go to their son’s baseball game and there must be security present," I have a pretty easy solution for that, but it might reduce profits: Just behave in a way so that your fellow citizens don't hate you? If people demonstrate by shouting your company name while carrying coffins around - which is what happened earlier this year when United Healthcare started using AI to reject claims - then that probably means that your actions have made you unpopular.

acdha 2y ago
Yes - there’s always some risk of theft, extortion, etc. but this case resonated so strongly because so many Americans have had life-altering insurance denials. One survey I saw had it at 13% of the population saying they knew someone who died because of a denial: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co... Whether or not you think that’s fair, that’s a huge number of people with the basis for a serious grudge. Since we’ve made it easier to get guns than healthcare, I’d expect copycats - especially after people see how much it struck a nerve.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  13% + 1 They didn't cover my grandmother's mammogram They didn't cover her chemo They didn't cover the pain and anxiety meds for her palliative care She died of cancer over the course of two years. Insurance made sure that she couldn't detect it early, treat it, or manage her pain and terror. As far as I'm concerned, they caused her death directly and made it as horrible as possible.
  - CryptoBanker 2y ago
    > They didn't cover her chemo How does that happen? AFAIK the ACA mandates coverage for cancer treatment for almost all plans.
    - clipsy 2y ago
      The government can mandate anything it wants, if insurance companies are allowed to perpetrate mass fraudulent denials then it simply doesn't matter.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - acdha 2y ago
      I don’t know their situation but common tactics are to deny claims hoping that the patient will either die or find other funding options. This is an entire industry: https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health... https://www.propublica.org/article/evicore-health-insurance-denials-cigna-unitedhealthcare-aetna-prior-authorizations https://www.propublica.org/article/evicore-health-insurance-... This is one example of how hard it can be to fight these fraudulent denials, even for someone with above average resources: https://www.propublica.org/article/priority-health-michigan-cart-insurance-vanpatten-denials https://www.propublica.org/article/priority-health-michigan-... Individuals can’t fix these problems at scale: it needs something like a government investigator with subpoena power and the ability to directly fine executives. As long as people make more money by denying care, they’re just going to keep finding ways to do so.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Just because it mandates coverage doesn't mean it mandates any treatment be provided in every case. Certain expensive chemo drugs will get denied unless cheaper options are tried first, if they're used off-label or experimental. Some won't be approved until surgery, at too early a stage or if tests don't indicate elevated risk factors.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      The plan may cover it, but that doesn't mean the insurance company won't find a way to deny the claim.
    - reverendsteveii 2y ago
      What you do is you deny it over and over and give a confused old woman the run-around until she's so exhausted she decides it's literally easier to die than to continue fighting. Ask me how I know.
- dr_kiszonka 2y ago
  > Since we’ve made it easier to get guns than healthcare This is such a great line! On the bright side, perhaps these big companies will now start lobbying for more reasonable gun laws.
  - neverartful 2y ago
    In the case of United Healthcare's CEO the murderer could have just have easily used a knife. When someone is really intent on killing you, guns are not their only option.
    - acdha 2y ago
      No, but it makes it much, much easier to do so successfully.
basementcat 2y ago
There is a free market solution to this. If the cost (including externalities) of 24/7 armed security is worth the increase in shareholder value, then by all means do it. If not, don't.
- fxtentacle 2y ago
  I agree. They'll probably reduce the number of claims they deny until the cost to prevent the next CEO from getting murdered is perfectly balanced with the increased profits caused by unethically denied claims. If you're a true believer in the markets, your CEOs live is just another line item to be optimised.
reverendsteveii 2y ago
Nah they thought they were just gonna do whatever they wanted to forever no matter who got hurt. The rich and powerful always believe that, and they're usually 100% correct right up until the moment where they're 100% incorrect.
- trod1234 2y ago
  I suppose that would depend on your working definition of correctness. If correct means its legally unenforceable and practical and you only take that into consideration in isolation, then yes, right up until logarithmic error occurs, as you say. The brass verdict is not a new concept, you see it show up in movies all the time like for example, The Beekeeper with Jason Statham. Unfortunately it is a fairly sound and established fact that violence happens more often when law fails to serve its primary function for the people. In a "rule of law", non-violent conflict management takes place. This is one of its primary purposes. When the requirements for a "rule of law" degrade into a "rule by law" regardless of what members of such systems may claim (people may be delusional,blind, or lie), through corruption or otherwise, these things inevitably occur since there is no other means to resolve conflict. This may just be one more example where business people win so much that they lose. When someone is at the top of a company, you are responsible not only for your actions, but for those under you as well. People in those positions must always be vigilant to inaction more than action, including those actions of others who are under your purview because inaction or failure to oversee is an action itself and a choice that is favored by many absent any information under many common management styles today. This is a sad story, but the news rarely covers anything other than fire flood or blood. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead, or so the newsies say.
stevage 2y ago
Probably not that easy in a country as divided as the US. Many actions will be hated by 50% of the country whichever way you go.
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  Nobody hates Flavor Flav.
  - NoGravitas 2y ago
    There's no song called "Fuck the Fire Department"* * Technically there is, but it was written after this saying became widely used, and also is not actually an anti-fire-department song.
- fxtentacle 2y ago
  Yes, people might not agree on what's best. But I don't think anyone feels like they can surely get away with murder. That means for them to decide to kill someone, they themselves are also sacrificing their own future. People will only do that for a cause that they truly care about. And while people are divided, on almost all issues they don't hate the other side enough that they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. You need to do something uniquely unpopular for receiving that intensity of hate. Also, it seems like despite the divide, most people agree on their hatred for insurance companies?
anacrolix 2y ago
Fuck, that's awful. I didn't know why they were so hated and now I do.

acdha 2y ago

Yes - there’s always some risk of theft, extortion, etc. but this case resonated so strongly because so many Americans have had life-altering insurance denials. One survey I saw had it at 13% of the population saying they knew someone who died because of a denial: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co... Whether or not you think that’s fair, that’s a huge number of people with the basis for a serious grudge. Since we’ve made it easier to get guns than healthcare, I’d expect copycats - especially after people see how much it struck a nerve.

reverendsteveii 2y ago
13% + 1 They didn't cover my grandmother's mammogram They didn't cover her chemo They didn't cover the pain and anxiety meds for her palliative care She died of cancer over the course of two years. Insurance made sure that she couldn't detect it early, treat it, or manage her pain and terror. As far as I'm concerned, they caused her death directly and made it as horrible as possible.
- CryptoBanker 2y ago
  > They didn't cover her chemo How does that happen? AFAIK the ACA mandates coverage for cancer treatment for almost all plans.
  - clipsy 2y ago
    The government can mandate anything it wants, if insurance companies are allowed to perpetrate mass fraudulent denials then it simply doesn't matter.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - acdha 2y ago
    I don’t know their situation but common tactics are to deny claims hoping that the patient will either die or find other funding options. This is an entire industry: https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health... https://www.propublica.org/article/evicore-health-insurance-denials-cigna-unitedhealthcare-aetna-prior-authorizations https://www.propublica.org/article/evicore-health-insurance-... This is one example of how hard it can be to fight these fraudulent denials, even for someone with above average resources: https://www.propublica.org/article/priority-health-michigan-cart-insurance-vanpatten-denials https://www.propublica.org/article/priority-health-michigan-... Individuals can’t fix these problems at scale: it needs something like a government investigator with subpoena power and the ability to directly fine executives. As long as people make more money by denying care, they’re just going to keep finding ways to do so.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Just because it mandates coverage doesn't mean it mandates any treatment be provided in every case. Certain expensive chemo drugs will get denied unless cheaper options are tried first, if they're used off-label or experimental. Some won't be approved until surgery, at too early a stage or if tests don't indicate elevated risk factors.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    The plan may cover it, but that doesn't mean the insurance company won't find a way to deny the claim.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    What you do is you deny it over and over and give a confused old woman the run-around until she's so exhausted she decides it's literally easier to die than to continue fighting. Ask me how I know.
dr_kiszonka 2y ago
> Since we’ve made it easier to get guns than healthcare This is such a great line! On the bright side, perhaps these big companies will now start lobbying for more reasonable gun laws.
- neverartful 2y ago
  In the case of United Healthcare's CEO the murderer could have just have easily used a knife. When someone is really intent on killing you, guns are not their only option.
  - acdha 2y ago
    No, but it makes it much, much easier to do so successfully.

basementcat 2y ago

There is a free market solution to this. If the cost (including externalities) of 24/7 armed security is worth the increase in shareholder value, then by all means do it. If not, don't.

fxtentacle 2y ago
I agree. They'll probably reduce the number of claims they deny until the cost to prevent the next CEO from getting murdered is perfectly balanced with the increased profits caused by unethically denied claims. If you're a true believer in the markets, your CEOs live is just another line item to be optimised.

reverendsteveii 2y ago

Nah they thought they were just gonna do whatever they wanted to forever no matter who got hurt. The rich and powerful always believe that, and they're usually 100% correct right up until the moment where they're 100% incorrect.

trod1234 2y ago
I suppose that would depend on your working definition of correctness. If correct means its legally unenforceable and practical and you only take that into consideration in isolation, then yes, right up until logarithmic error occurs, as you say. The brass verdict is not a new concept, you see it show up in movies all the time like for example, The Beekeeper with Jason Statham. Unfortunately it is a fairly sound and established fact that violence happens more often when law fails to serve its primary function for the people. In a "rule of law", non-violent conflict management takes place. This is one of its primary purposes. When the requirements for a "rule of law" degrade into a "rule by law" regardless of what members of such systems may claim (people may be delusional,blind, or lie), through corruption or otherwise, these things inevitably occur since there is no other means to resolve conflict. This may just be one more example where business people win so much that they lose. When someone is at the top of a company, you are responsible not only for your actions, but for those under you as well. People in those positions must always be vigilant to inaction more than action, including those actions of others who are under your purview because inaction or failure to oversee is an action itself and a choice that is favored by many absent any information under many common management styles today. This is a sad story, but the news rarely covers anything other than fire flood or blood. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead, or so the newsies say.

stevage 2y ago

Probably not that easy in a country as divided as the US. Many actions will be hated by 50% of the country whichever way you go.

brokenmachine 2y ago
Nobody hates Flavor Flav.
- NoGravitas 2y ago
  There's no song called "Fuck the Fire Department"* * Technically there is, but it was written after this saying became widely used, and also is not actually an anti-fire-department song.
fxtentacle 2y ago
Yes, people might not agree on what's best. But I don't think anyone feels like they can surely get away with murder. That means for them to decide to kill someone, they themselves are also sacrificing their own future. People will only do that for a cause that they truly care about. And while people are divided, on almost all issues they don't hate the other side enough that they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. You need to do something uniquely unpopular for receiving that intensity of hate. Also, it seems like despite the divide, most people agree on their hatred for insurance companies?

anacrolix 2y ago

Fuck, that's awful. I didn't know why they were so hated and now I do.