[deleted]
Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
11–20 of 301 posts
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#12"No industry malfeasance could ever excuse murder. Period." Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some? (Not saying that's the case here, but nypost made an interesting categorical statement.)
"Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some?"
This is a heavy statement.
More I read, heavy it gets.
Kill people it never the answer. The ideia that "I" have the power is weak. People, together, have power, however they don't know what to do. In his case the easiest way to win is pressuring the government, with the people, for clear changes.
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#13"No industry malfeasance could ever excuse murder. Period." Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some? (Not saying that's the case here, but nypost made an interesting categorical statement.)
I'm trying to figure out if these deaths caused by insurance denials could actually be considered murder. I think they would definitely qualify as being premeditated, but can you consider them "killing"? They are causing death due to omission of expected care, but can the omission of something like medical care be considered the cause of death?
Ask yourself this question again when it's your partner/parent/child in the casket.
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#14"No industry malfeasance could ever excuse murder. Period." Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some? (Not saying that's the case here, but nypost made an interesting categorical statement.)
I'm trying to figure out if these deaths caused by insurance denials could actually be considered murder. I think they would definitely qualify as being premeditated, but can you consider them "killing"? They are causing death due to omission of expected care, but can the omission of something like medical care be considered the cause of death?
I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that death due to omission of expected care fits pretty neatly under "negligent homicide".
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#15It's time the US realizes how bad its medical system is.
Everybody knows how bad it is. Everyone wants to change it. But I don't see how it can change as long as both parties are on the payroll
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/unitedhealth-group/recipien...
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#16"No industry malfeasance could ever excuse murder." AND YET
If there wasn't a recent murder of a CEO, that line could be taken as directed towards insurers.
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#17"No industry malfeasance could ever excuse murder. Period." Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some? (Not saying that's the case here, but nypost made an interesting categorical statement.)
"Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some?" This is a heavy statement. More I read, heavy it gets. Kill people it never the answer. The ideia that "I" have the power is weak. People, together, have power, however they don't know what to do. In his case the easiest way to win is pressuring the government, with the people, for clear changes.
Killing people is not the answer but somehow another Healthcare company backtracked on not covering anymore long anesthesia.
Perhaps n = 1 is too low of a value? We should research this field more, some people may die but it's a chance I'm willing to take
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#18"No industry malfeasance could ever excuse murder. Period." Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some? (Not saying that's the case here, but nypost made an interesting categorical statement.)
"Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some?" This is a heavy statement. More I read, heavy it gets. Kill people it never the answer. The ideia that "I" have the power is weak. People, together, have power, however they don't know what to do. In his case the easiest way to win is pressuring the government, with the people, for clear changes.
I agree with you. But if anything, politically, we are watching the pendulum swing in the opposite direction.
I worry that the future for the U.S. is the malaise that appears to have taken hold of the Russian people.
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#19IDK. What puzzles me here is that a NYPost article can be trending on HN.
Re: Feds help health insurers hide their dirty secret: denials on the rise
#20"No industry malfeasance could ever excuse murder. Period." Murdering a murderer to save many innocents could be considered ethical by some? (Not saying that's the case here, but nypost made an interesting categorical statement.)
Executing a murderer can be defended. “Industry malfeasance” leading to death is indefensible.