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

81–90 of 394 posts

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

#81

Post by paulgb »

RunningDroid wrote: post #71
paulgb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That evidence wouldn't be admitted. There's no “the guy deserved it” defense for murder, it's always illegal to kill people. That's where jury nullification comes in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

I'm aware of jury nullification, but it doesn't change what evidence can be introduced.

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

#83

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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.

Comments you see on the Internet are not a random sample! If there's one lesson I could drive home to everyone about media literacy, this is it. Everything you see online is intensely, competitively selected for its ability to drive engagement, and celebrating murder drives a ton of engagement precisely because it transgresses well-established and widely agreed norms. Indeed, as we've seen here, the murder drives so much engagement that people are eager to discuss it in the comments of any article that's even tangentially related!

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

#84

Post by BadHumans »

polalavik wrote: post #73
whatever1 wrote: post #59

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.…

I had to get a medication for a stomach bacteria called C. diff. It has bad relapse rates and its best to get it in check asap. What my doctor prescibed was the newest/best antibiotic for the issue, the other have worse recovery rates and way worse side effects. I have very good insurance. The price of the medication without insurance was about $5000, the price with very good insurance was about $1300. After redditin…

> After redditing i found a thread where you can find a manufacturers coupon on the manufacturers website. After knowing this seemingly secret hidden trick the medicine was $50. My doctor didnt know about that, my insurance didnt either. Absolutely insane.

This is GoodRx's business model in a nutshell. I used them when I didn't have insurance and saved a ton on medicine.

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

#85

Post by samatman »

paulgb wrote: post #55
griomnib wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is by no means always illegal to kill people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

This assassination meets none of the criteria however. I suspect we'd find an amusing overlap between people who want to exculpate the assassin, and those who are opposed to the state applying the death penalty to convicts.

Whether or not the guy had it coming is an opinion, one I'm personally holding off on having until we have more information about it. That means I'm not ruling out thinking so, and harbor hope in any case that it might prompt other health insurance CEOs to consider whether providing better service to their customers might also be in their direct self interest. Then again, I'm not opposed to the death penalty either.

But regardless of where one might fall on that question, it's delusional to think that the state will not regard the assassination as first-degree murder, and that a jury would do other than convict in the event that they're persuaded that the defendant is the same person as the one who was caught on video shooting him in the back. That's not what's going to happen.

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

#86

Post by bilbo0s »

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.

I'm not a New Yorker, but I am an American interested in societal order.

I'd much rather not have to test either of your theories. One thing I learned about civilian populations during the Iraq war, if you're going to force someone to get down off the fence, you'd better know what side of the fence they're gonna jump down on.

If you don't know, then for the love of whatever you deem divine, just leave them on the fence.

I would say that our leaders would quickly start to address some of the inequities throughout our legal system that allow people to be taken advantage of in egregious ways. But our leaders are not like that. They'll likely do nothing about a lot of the unfairness in the laws out there. There is in fact, unfortunately, a distinct possibility that many of our leaders went into politics to increase the unfairness.

I just kind of get the sense that we're at a point in our history where we're already sitting on a powder keg. We shouldn't play with fire while we're sitting here. Let's at least get rid of some of the powder first.

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

#87

Post by whatever1 »

aantix wrote: post #80
whatever1 wrote: post #59

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.…

I needed an adrenalectomy. I called before hand, trying to figure out what I would owe afterwards. No one could give me a price. It’s all vague, we don’t know answers. It’s absurd. I basically got stern - eventually somebody is going to send me a bill with a number on it, so someone knows what this will cost. Still never got a solid number out of them.

Even better, the hospital might use subcontractors for some services so for months you will be getting bills from random vendors.

In any case, best of luck with your surgery:)

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

#88

Post by bbqfog »

threemux wrote: post #54
bbqfog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

That's a health industry think tank:

https://www.kff.org/board-of-trustees/

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

#89

Post by SoftTalker »

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.

Please point to the public health care system that does not have limits on what drugs and treatments are approved.

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

#90

Post by krisoft »

77pt77 wrote: post #38
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.

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

Please tell us more. Which country would this be in? What bone was broken?

The idea that a state engages in some grand conspiracy to spare the expense of a gypsum cast is ludicrous to me. Yes states engage in cost-benefit analysis of treatments but the contentious bits are not around broken bones. More along the lines if particular cancer treatments are worth it or not, or if the state can pay for super expensive advance treatments.

Post reply on HN