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

31–40 of 394 posts

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

#31

Post by griomnib »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #21
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.

I think the pro-murder caucus is quite a bit smaller than you're envisioning. Some juries wouldn't convict the shooter, sure, but willingness to convict if that's where the evidence points is something the prosecution will be considering in jury selection.

I’ve spent days reviewing comments on Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, news articles, et al and I’ve never seen such a uniformity of opinion on anything in my life.

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

#32

Post by 77pt77 »

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…

And all it takes is one juror being inflexible.

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

#33

Post by Yeul »

Fizzadar wrote: post #12

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.

There are people here on HN that no doubt make a lot of money working for Google. The idea that they are treated equally to a homeless man is not something they would want.

It is no coincidence that universal healthcare was introduced during a time when the elite were recovering from WW2.

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

#34

Post by croissants »

dboreham wrote: post #3
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?

> Supposedly we have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because it costs so much to discover new treatments Big pharma disinformation? Perhaps most new treatment research is government funded (and by governments of other countries).

Do you have evidence for "most new treatment research is government funded (and by governments of other countries)"? My understanding is that the opposite is true: big pharmaceutical companies foot most of the bill for developing new drugs, then US-based insurers pay high costs, and most "other countries" enjoy much lower prices because US healthcare is effectively subsidizing their drug prices.

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

#35

Post by griomnib »

paulgb wrote: post #26
griomnib wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a New Yorker myself, I’m fairly confident.

I'm also a New Yorker and I think that most of us actually do not believe that assassinations are a net benefit to society, no matter how dissatisfied with the health care system we are.

There’s an incredibly strong argument this particular person likely killed tens of thousand of people by his decisions to deny and delay care.

This was not an employee carrying out orders from corporate, it’s the guy who is directly responsible for these deaths. This CEO is as much a mass murder as any other tyrant who commanded soldiers to commit atrocities.

That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury. Intent matters tremendously in the legal system (mens rea). This isn’t random, this is very, very targeted.

Likewise, the lawyers this guy can afford after his GoFundMe legal defense fund raises millions will be top tier.

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

#36

Post by BeefWellington »

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?

Worse, in many cases you're getting an existing 100% solution repackaged for $X * 1000.

Anything routine is so expensive in the US because regulation's gone completely out the window.

An area I'm familiar with for example: in Canada (where I am now) Salbutamol inhalers cost about $20-25. In California I was lucky to find it less than $100. And this is for a well-known decades old generic.

See also: insulin. It's making headlines[1] that companies are finally dropping prices down to roughly in line with the rest of the world (starting in 2026). And this is after other measures have already been taken -- it used to be much worse.[2]

Worth repeating: this price gouging is for generic and old medication.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/novo-nordisk-to-cu...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47491964

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

#37

Post by threemux »

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.

Don't be so sure. It's interesting how quickly the places where this ghoulish view is proliferating (Reddit) have forgotten what they learned a month ago.

The Internet is not reality and online posts are not a representative sample of the population. Instead, every survey of Americans shows around 80% are satisfied with their health coverage.

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

#38

Post by 77pt77 »

Fizzadar wrote: post #12

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.

The refusal privilege goes from a private company to the state.

I've had a broken bone that was visible in an xray and told to go home.

Then the state tried to hide it by playing all sorts of weird games to prevent me from getting the ER xray.

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

#39

Post by spondylosaurus »

griomnib wrote: post #35
paulgb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also a New Yorker and I think that most of us actually do not believe that assassinations are a net benefit to society, no matter how dissatisfied with the health care system we are.

There’s an incredibly strong argument this particular person likely killed tens of thousand of people by his decisions to deny and delay care. This was not an employee carrying out orders from corporate, it’s the guy who is directly responsible for these deaths. This CEO is as much a mass murder as any other tyrant who commanded soldiers to commit atrocities. That will be part of the defense argument presented to the…

Hey now, he didn't just kill tens of thousands of people by denying/delaying care! He also got filthy stinking rich in the process.

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

#40

Post by slt2021 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #21
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.

I think the pro-murder caucus is quite a bit smaller than you're envisioning. Some juries wouldn't convict the shooter, sure, but willingness to convict if that's where the evidence points is something the prosecution will be considering in jury selection.

>>pro-murder caucus

if there is a single issue that unites all Americans, this is it. Insurance is by design an incredibly evil extractive racket that only steals from people's pockets

Post reply on HN