Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 394 posts

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#11

Post by Dalewyn »

ConspiracyFact wrote: post #2

Horrifying. But also horrifying that treatment costs so much. Supposedly we have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because it costs so much to discover new treatments, but there has to be a great deal of inefficiency there. Are we getting a 99% solution for $X when we could be getting a 95% solution for $X/10?

>But also horrifying that treatment costs so much.

My mother underwent chemotherapy for her cancer.

According to the statements from her insurance company, each round of chemotherapy cost as much as a new luxury car before hospital vs. insurance negotiations. Yeah.

The value of health insurance isn't just the offloading of expenses, it's also their power to tell hospitals to get fucking bent with ludicrous bills.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#12

Post by Fizzadar »

It’s bullshit like this that makes me realise how lucky we are in countries that have public health care. Sure it has problems but private systems seem to have zero advantage for the average person. Pay more for less effectiveness AND a bunch of people get nothing.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#14

Post by tossandthrow »

griomnib wrote: post #6

No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.

Is the shooting related to this? I have not stumbled upon any resources linking them, but it would interesting to learn more!

Saying that they are linked, then it is interesting that we are falling back on why we have a lot of regulations and protections. While you can make a legal system where exploitation is legal (as some would argue the US health care system is), there is a breaking point where it will result in civil unrest.

I am curious to see if that is the point we are reaching now.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#15

Post by Waterluvian »

griomnib wrote: post #6

No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.

If the shooter is a contract killer I think the potential for jury nullification plummets.

I also think it’s impossible to predict any way. But I can definitely see that nullification is a real possibility.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#16

Post by maxlamb »

tossandthrow wrote: post #14
griomnib wrote: post #6

No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.

Is the shooting related to this? I have not stumbled upon any resources linking them, but it would interesting to learn more! Saying that they are linked, then it is interesting that we are falling back on why we have a lot of regulations and protections. While you can make a legal system where exploitation is legal (as some would argue the US health care system is), there is a breaking point where it will result in…

One of the bullets had “deny” engraved in it.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#18

Post by ct520 »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #10
griomnib wrote: post #6

No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.

Why not? Should he be caught it seems like an open and shut case with video evidence.

What I believe he is referring to is Jury nullification. I interpret your statement of open and shut case as you believe jury must convict if what they interpret to be facts of breaking a laws written by man. By a jury choosing not to convict there is another form of justice implied…

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#19

Post by readthenotes1 »

thfuran wrote: post #9
readthenotes1 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because of otherwise medical care costs would not be so high. Companies providing medical Care have to spend 80% of their costs on actual medical care, not marketing and executive compensation. The only way to make the 20% that really matter to the decision makers larger is to make the medical costs larger. It is one reason people on United healthcare get $100 g…

>Companies providing medical Care have to spend 80% of their costs on actual medical care, not marketing and executive compensation. That requirement was imposed on insurers in response to already-exorbitant medical costs. It does create a perverse incentive, but it cannot be the root cause of the issue.

Well, before that (and continuing), the largest customer of drugs in the United States is prohibited from negotiating price for most drugs.

The exorbitant costs arose with the provision of private medical insurance in the 1940s but only really took off when Medicare and Medicaid came in the 1969s with, essentially, a blank check for cost.

Things weren't improved in the 1980s when emergency rooms were required to provide care regardless on a patient's ability to pay, leading to another perversion that for a significant group of people the only way to get medical care was when it was too late and most expensive.

ACA is just another example of the US government doing stupid.

Re: UnitedHealth's Effort to Deny Coverage for a Patient's Care (2023)

#20

Post by aaomidi »

ct520 wrote: post #18
throwawa14223 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Should he be caught it seems like an open and shut case with video evidence.

What I believe he is referring to is Jury nullification. I interpret your statement of open and shut case as you believe jury must convict if what they interpret to be facts of breaking a laws written by man. By a jury choosing not to convict there is another form of justice implied…

Yeah it’s effectively one of the final bastions of defense that’s not a civil war.
Post reply on HN