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

51–60 of 394 posts

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

#51

Post by slt2021 »

itronitron wrote: post #4
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?

The inefficiency is that for many pharmaceutical companies in the US, their marketing budget is much higher than (~10X) the R&D budget.

the marketing expense is a legalized lobbying. What you see in marketing, is just payback scheme to Media/TV (to shut down any criticism of pharma), and doctors (for promoting/prescribing drugs)

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

#52

Post by spondylosaurus »

lambda wrote: post #25
tossandthrow wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's one of the leading theories. Obviously, there's not enough information to say for sure. But the CEO's wife has said that there were threats, possibly related to lack of coverage: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-kille... > In an interview with NBC, Thompson’s widow, Paulette told the network that “there had been some threats” against her husband. > “Basically, I don’t know, a lack of cove…

UHC also has the highest claim denial rate in the healthcare industry, and they're notorious for stiffing doctors on payments as well. If there was ever a health insurer who'd stoke the kind of grudge that drives people to violence, it's UHC, because they're the worst among the worst.

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

#53

Post by loeg »

griomnib wrote: post #31
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you familiar with sampling bias.

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

#54

Post by threemux »

bbqfog wrote: post #43
threemux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, "every survey" doesn't suggest 80% of Americans are satisfied with their health coverage. Can you site this data? Every person I've ever met IRL has hated the health industry with a burning passion. As you would expect given the exorbitant prices on insurance and care. Also, no one enjoys having their employer hold so much leverage in their life as for most people health insurance is tied to their job.

[flagged]

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

#55

Post by paulgb »

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…

> That will be part of the defense argument presented to the jury.

That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people.

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

#56

Post by 1123581321 »

griomnib wrote: post #44
threemux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they aren’t sick and haven’t had to use the system for life saving care, then the numbers from the same surveys you cite are VASTLY different. Please don’t cherry pick misleading data.

Can you please link to the study that breaks out respondents by their health? I haven’t seen what you two are referring to.

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

#57

Post by _yb2s »

croissants wrote: post #34
dboreham wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It’s both working together- the basic research, including identifying targets and new chemistry and in some cases even the drugs themselves are mostly academia. However, clinical trials, and drug development that iterates the chemical structure itself and delivery approaches is very expensive, and almost entirely done by industry. Often the academics are working collaboratively with pharmaceutical- and can have either government or pharmaceutical funding for these projects. I’m an academic PI that has discovered and patented new drugs and licensed them to industry.

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

#58

Post by Hemospectrum »

Dalewyn wrote: post #11
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.

Health insurance price negotiation is the primary reason those prices are so high in the first place. An insurance company gets to say it negotiated a 99% discount (or whatever) and the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies still charge prices high enough to turn a comfortable profit.

It's a lot like "Black Friday" sales where retailers jack up their shelf prices in the preceding days and weeks so they can mark them down and persuade the customers they're getting attractive deals.

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

#59

Post by whatever1 »

I really don’t get why everyone involved is allowed to have hidden prices. It looks like a highway robbery.

I had a relative visiting from Europe and they had to go to the urgent care for some blood and urine tests and consultation. They received a $2,500 bill!

My relative told the hospital that they are leaving the country and offered to pay $250 or good luck collecting from abroad.

Then something magical happened. The hospital just told them that they found a special discount and the deal was closed at $250.

What a sh**show.

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

#60

Post by robertlagrant »

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…

"It was targeted" is not normally a defence, though?
Post reply on HN