The assassination of United Healthcare's CEO is a real life trolley problem, and a select few are trying to argue to save all lives while the train is going to kill the masses.
The assassination of United Healthcare's CEO is a real life trolley problem, and a select few are trying to argue to save all lives while the train is going to kill the masses.
It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.
It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn't save lives...people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.
Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.
You're viewing a single thread.
- this will save precisely zero lives
- you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
- insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
Insurance companies in other countries survive just fine by paying out what they are expected to. Only in America is insurance as screwed up as it is.
Number 3 is the best argument for national insurance. (Saying public might imply it's tradable, this isn't what I've meant)
Wish more people talked about reform than violence tbh. Thinking about leaving lemmy since associating myself with some people here makes me sick
The health insurance industry is an abomination. It's completely across the purpose of keeping a population healthy to try to extract and concentrate wealth out of the process, and they're dug in like a tick.
Health care is not compatible with the free market as health care is logically something people would pay anything for.
National insurance denies claims all the time as well in some form.
Not to the extent of UHC
Do you have detailed numbers or just a feeling?
UHC covers far more people than most national systems despite not being national (I'm sure china is bigger, but most countries have much smaller populations). National systems often have ways of saying "that isn't covered" that mean the claim isn't even attempted. there are many different national systems with different rules. There are lots of other complications here that need to be studied in depth.
Somebody posted a graph of the stats in another thread, and there was a great follow-up by somebody who had worked in claims at another company about just how bad those stats really were.
The national average for denied claims is 16%. UHC denies 39% of claims. The real kicker here, as they pointed out, is that this is after appeals. They worked at some branch of Blue Cross, which sits at 17% of claims, and said how most claims that are appealed are approved and that the vast majority of those that are denied are things like chiropractors putting in claims for procedures that end up being malpractice or stuff where the paperwork was wrong. Basically, if you get something denied by insurance, you're almost guaranteed to get it approved after an appeal. They said that for UHC to hit the numbers that they do, they would effectively have to deny almost every claim that they get that isn't a routine medical visit like an annual physical.
I think you're getting this kind of backwards. Individual claims aren't denied under universal healthcare. It's not opaque like a private insurer. Specific procedures are the thing not covered, and that becomes part of a national legislative/policy discussion.
What is the difference if you need a treatment you cannot get
The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It's not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said "often have ways" implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter's point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.
Rate is just one data point. I'm back again to asking for in depth analysis. Do people who use UHC submit more bogus claims than those who use other insurance for example? There are many more important questions that need to be asked.
Holy moly, are you really this much of a bootlicker that you buy "bogus claims" as an excuse for insurance denying people life-saving treatment?
You're right, rate is just one data point. One I think you purposefully ignored now.
this will save precisely zero lives
Not if it starts a movement
It is not just this one life
See above
an insurance company that never denies any claims
Ideally that's called free universal healthcare, which we should have
you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
Yes, it's a shame the system failed to deliver justice. The solution isn't that justice shouldn't be served, it's that the system needs to be fixed so people like this
are killed lawfully and by the stateare not in a position where they profit off of human misery.If he was no longer a threat, I'd endorse rehabilitation, the last emperor of China, who collaborated with the Japanese in WWII ended up living out his years working menial jobs and making real connections with people.
His wife said on the news that he loved life...
Just his own
allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public
Are you proposing to not allow people to voice support for the murder?
You can't be serious 😂
