3 ms·

There is an easy fix - just don't issue so many denials. Or refund people's premiums. Things become very easy when you are willing to sacrifice exec pay and in

There is an easy fix - just don't issue so many denials. Or refund people's premiums. Things become very easy when you are willing to sacrifice exec pay and investor returns - at least temporarily.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
What percent of denials do you think would not happen, if everyone worked for the company for free?
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  >What percent of denials do you think would not happen, if everyone worked for the company for free? Wrong question. The correct question is - what percentage of denials would not happen, if exec pay and market cap is allowed to be cut by 75% while keeping the revenue the same.
  - BoxFour 2y ago
    Based on some quick napkin math from their 10-K for FY 2023, they could afford to spend about 7% more in claims (107% of their current payouts, that is). If you cut exec comp to $0 and profits to $0, it's more like 9.7%.
    - nine_zeros 2y ago
      Nice math. 9.7% more claims makes it a substantially worthwhile endeavor.
      - BoxFour 2y ago
        I’d be remiss if I didn’t also mention that 98% of that 9.7% (so 9.5 of the 9.7) comes from slashing profits to $0. Exec comp alone is just a rounding error by comparison.
      - IncreasePosts 2y ago
        No, it's not 9.7% more claims, it's spending 9.7% more on claims. And that means very little without an understanding of the total cost of claims denied. How many claims would still be denied? Do denied claims even follow the same cost distribution of allowed claims? Maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine very expensive claims are denied more commonly than very inexpensive claims. I think it's pretty clear that even if that extra 9.7% was paid out, there would still be a huge list of denied claims, and the psychos that celebrate Mangione would still be calling for murdering people in the healthcare industry, if they're basing their calls for murder on the fact that claims get denied commonly. The US healthcare system is fundamentally broken by absurd costs all around. It is not really broken because a tiny fraction of workers make large bonuses. That doesn't help, but it is not the root of the issue in the slightest.
gruez 2y ago
The whole company made 3.6% margin last year. There isn't much room for either, even if the company suddenly became a non-profit.
- galleywest200 2y ago
  On what amount of revenue? How many billions is that 3.6%?
  - gruez 2y ago
    How is the absolute amount relevant aside from being able to use shocking words like "BILLIONS" or whatever? 3.6% is 3.6%. It might work out to billions, but if it's split across hundreds/tens of millions of customers that's nothing. I doubt anyone is going to be placated if UNH provided 3.6% more healthcare to its customers.
    - relaxing 2y ago
      Because then you can start to ask questions about whether the absolute amount has been inflated to create and absolute amount of wealth for the executives and investors.
      - gruez 2y ago
        Do you really need a health insurance company's revenue/profits in absolute amounts to "start to ask questions" about the state of the US healthcare system? The fact that the US spends twice as much as its peers on healthcare should be enough justification. Moreover, it's unclear how you make any meaningful conclusion from the UNH's absolute financial numbers. UNH makes $32.3 in profit on $400.3 billion of revenue. Medicare on the other hand spent 1 trillion (!). It's unclear how anyone can look at those numbers and conclude whether they're too high, too low, or whether "the absolute amount has been inflated".
        relaxing 2y ago
ericjmorey 2y ago
Insurance contracts are not allowed to be cancelled in lieu of the fulfillment of the liabilities created by the insurance contracts. That's literally fraud and laws were made in the late 1800's and early 1900's to deal with insurance companies that ran this scam for life and fire insurance. The answer is to eliminate health insurance entirely.

There is an easy fix - just don't issue so many denials. Or refund people's premiums. Things become very easy when you are willing to sacrifice exec pay and investor returns - at least temporarily.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

What percent of denials do you think would not happen, if everyone worked for the company for free?

nine_zeros 2y ago
>What percent of denials do you think would not happen, if everyone worked for the company for free? Wrong question. The correct question is - what percentage of denials would not happen, if exec pay and market cap is allowed to be cut by 75% while keeping the revenue the same.
- BoxFour 2y ago
  Based on some quick napkin math from their 10-K for FY 2023, they could afford to spend about 7% more in claims (107% of their current payouts, that is). If you cut exec comp to $0 and profits to $0, it's more like 9.7%.
  - nine_zeros 2y ago
    Nice math. 9.7% more claims makes it a substantially worthwhile endeavor.
    - BoxFour 2y ago
      I’d be remiss if I didn’t also mention that 98% of that 9.7% (so 9.5 of the 9.7) comes from slashing profits to $0. Exec comp alone is just a rounding error by comparison.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      No, it's not 9.7% more claims, it's spending 9.7% more on claims. And that means very little without an understanding of the total cost of claims denied. How many claims would still be denied? Do denied claims even follow the same cost distribution of allowed claims? Maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine very expensive claims are denied more commonly than very inexpensive claims. I think it's pretty clear that even if that extra 9.7% was paid out, there would still be a huge list of denied claims, and the psychos that celebrate Mangione would still be calling for murdering people in the healthcare industry, if they're basing their calls for murder on the fact that claims get denied commonly. The US healthcare system is fundamentally broken by absurd costs all around. It is not really broken because a tiny fraction of workers make large bonuses. That doesn't help, but it is not the root of the issue in the slightest.

gruez 2y ago

The whole company made 3.6% margin last year. There isn't much room for either, even if the company suddenly became a non-profit.

galleywest200 2y ago
On what amount of revenue? How many billions is that 3.6%?
- gruez 2y ago
  How is the absolute amount relevant aside from being able to use shocking words like "BILLIONS" or whatever? 3.6% is 3.6%. It might work out to billions, but if it's split across hundreds/tens of millions of customers that's nothing. I doubt anyone is going to be placated if UNH provided 3.6% more healthcare to its customers.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    Because then you can start to ask questions about whether the absolute amount has been inflated to create and absolute amount of wealth for the executives and investors.
    - gruez 2y ago
      Do you really need a health insurance company's revenue/profits in absolute amounts to "start to ask questions" about the state of the US healthcare system? The fact that the US spends twice as much as its peers on healthcare should be enough justification. Moreover, it's unclear how you make any meaningful conclusion from the UNH's absolute financial numbers. UNH makes $32.3 in profit on $400.3 billion of revenue. Medicare on the other hand spent 1 trillion (!). It's unclear how anyone can look at those numbers and conclude whether they're too high, too low, or whether "the absolute amount has been inflated".
      - relaxing 2y ago

ericjmorey 2y ago

Insurance contracts are not allowed to be cancelled in lieu of the fulfillment of the liabilities created by the insurance contracts. That's literally fraud and laws were made in the late 1800's and early 1900's to deal with insurance companies that ran this scam for life and fire insurance. The answer is to eliminate health insurance entirely.