121–130 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Purpose != intent. Besides, no one is saying there is a single intent so refuting that point doesn't exactly a counter.
Colloquially, no, they are synonymous. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of a system is what it does. It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are.
> It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are. I am honestly extremely baffled about what your mental model here is. When UHC doesn't deny a claim, who is paying…
If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed.Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of a system is what it does. It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are.
Without the black box, no one gets any medical treatment at all!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are. I am honestly extremely baffled about what your mental model here is. When UHC doesn't deny a claim, who is paying…
I omitted it because it doesn't change the calculus. If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the part where people were denied care that they needed in order to provide profits and dividends to its shareholders.
1. Who decides what care is "needed"? Everyone is going to die eventually. I have a relative who believes they "need" ivermectin to prophylactically safeguard against contracting covid. Are insurance companies obligated to provide ivermectin to everyone who demands it, or should they apply some standard of efficacy and cost/benefit analysis? 2. Profits to shareholders and other people contributing their time and reso…
> Everyone is going to die eventually
So why provide healthcare at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are. I am honestly extremely baffled about what your mental model here is. When UHC doesn't deny a claim, who is paying…
I omitted it because it doesn't change the calculus. If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Colloquially, no, they are synonymous. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intent
But we aren't talking colloquially, we're talking about within the maxim. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it feels like you're doubling down in order to prove a point.
Yes, if we could wave a wand and delete the fact that it ever happened, that would be ideal. But the problem is more difficult to solve now, because we have the problem of the health insurance system, and the problem of drastic systematic and economic change.
I don't understand the comments excusing the CEO of his responsibility. I work for a scale-up insurance company, and the CEOs are pretty clear with their mandate: customer service is paramount, we make money by streamlining our processes, negotiating hard with our network, and pricing properly our products. NOT by denying claims. This philosophy is enforced from the top all the way down, with Chinese walls between pr…
How do you avoid losing money due to fraudulent claims, claims for services outside the scope of what you're insuring against, claims for ineffective resolutions to the claimed damages, etc.? Am I supposed to know what a "scale-up insurance company" is?
Fraudulent claims are a tiny percentage of claims, and are rejected after human review, usually involving detectives. In the countries we operate, fraudulent claims are about 6-8% of all claims, and that's usually the level we aim to detect. Being able to absorb some false negatives is usually cheaper than going for the full 100% detection rate. It is definitely more customer oriented than rejecting due to false positives.
[flagged]
Even if we do accept that this executive was responsible for many deaths, you will need to find a law that lets you prosecute him or get one passed. There's a reason we don't just let people murder murderers, even if they have very good moral justification for it.
It remains to be seen whether this will be allowed. The jury may be unable to agree that this person should be found guilty despite the video evidence.