Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hit men aren't what you think

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#151

Post by hollerith »

TinkersW wrote: post #143
avalys wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

United Healthcare is a publicly-traded company which makes a 6% profit margin and pays a dividend, which means that those profits ultimately benefit people's retirement accounts, pensions and middle-class investments. The person who was killed made $10M last year, while UHC provided care to 52 million patients. So, the CEO was paid approximately $0.20 per patient treated last year. What part of all this do you believ…

UHC does not provide care, they are a leach on society, as all health insurances companies are.

That's right. UHC has never done one good thing.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#152

Post by [deleted] »

silverquiet wrote: post #72
allturtles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you will need to find a law that lets you prosecute him or get one passed When this proves impossible, and a gun is trivially easy to obtain, what do you think happens? The president-elect himself is alive today only because a bullet was off-trajectory by a centimeter or two.

[deleted]

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#154

Post by diob »

slibhb wrote: post #57
cogman10 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your theory of responsibility? Ethical: He was the CEO of the company and ultimately the buck stops with him on company policies. The company he lead has the highest number of insurance denials (double most other insurance agencies). That has almost certainly lead to death as people not being able to afford treatment is a great way to die. Consider, for example, if someone has cancer and insurance denies co…

> This is not a soldier or a serial killer. It's worse than both. How can you be so morally clueless? When an insurance company denies coverage, it isn't killing someone. It didn't make anyone sick. Rather, it didn't pick up the bill for their treatment. That may have been wrong, it may have been an evasion of responsibility, but it is not comparable to someone who goes around killing people . I have to understand co…

I think you don't understand the games they play. They will cause a surgery to be delayed the day of the surgery by last minute denial tactics, losing patients precious time in things like cancer treatments. In that case, you didn't have the time to even collect the money and get a loan, if that's really your angle.

It's not performance art, just empathy.

I have a friend who they tried to kill this year. His doctor recommended going in and removing an area they thought some skin cancer had spread to. They performed the surgery, biopsy confirmed their suspicions.

After all that, the insurance company (too late thankfully) came in and said they didn't think the cancer had spread, so no need for surgery.

I hope you never have to deal with this, but if you live long enough you or a friend / family member probably will.

There's countless amounts of blood on their hands. It's not about bills coming in and getting uncovered, it's about life saving surgeries being delayed till the patient dies in hopes that they can avoid covering something they're supposed, or avoiding paying for a medication in the hopes that the patient dies before they can litigate.

I don't really care how you want to spin things, that's murder, and thankfully most folks agree with me.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#155

Post by wolrah »

kube-system wrote: post #126
kelseyfrog wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except every other country is able to function without the black box :/

Most countries do have private health insurance, even if they also have more robust public options.

Private health insurance in a country that has a robust public option is an entirely different thing because that baseline level of care means that the private providers have to offer something substantial above and beyond the baseline to justify their continued existence. People with medical needs can choose to tell them all where to stick it and still live without going in to debt.

Most insured individuals in America don't choose their health insurance provider, they just get it from their employer where they might have a choice of plans. The closest thing to an actual competitive insurance market we have is that provided by the ACA, and though that act did many good things the disappointment of the marketplace has been well documented.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#156

Post by runako »

kube-system wrote: post #127
kelseyfrog wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to who? It changes the calculus for me. I pay my health insurance because it covers the services I need. I could absolutely opt out if I wanted to, but I don't.

> I pay my health insurance because it covers the services I need

I think that, aside from the cost, this is probably the biggest issue most people have with health insurance in the US. UHC makes a lot of money specifically in part by not covering services you need, for example by having accountants override your doctors's orders.

If it were as simple as getting the services you need in exchange for money, I don't think as many people would hate the system as much.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#158

Post by andreimackenzie »

avalys wrote: post #110
jonathanlb wrote: post #73

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…

Most people don't decide about their own medical "needs." They trust doctors, who are by and large expert and professional, yet frequently discredited by insurance companies.

Insurance companies have too much power in this dynamic, and there should be limits to what they can deny once doctors deem it needed.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#159

Post by lazystar »

slibhb wrote: post #57
cogman10 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your theory of responsibility? Ethical: He was the CEO of the company and ultimately the buck stops with him on company policies. The company he lead has the highest number of insurance denials (double most other insurance agencies). That has almost certainly lead to death as people not being able to afford treatment is a great way to die. Consider, for example, if someone has cancer and insurance denies co…

> This is not a soldier or a serial killer. It's worse than both. How can you be so morally clueless? When an insurance company denies coverage, it isn't killing someone. It didn't make anyone sick. Rather, it didn't pick up the bill for their treatment. That may have been wrong, it may have been an evasion of responsibility, but it is not comparable to someone who goes around killing people . I have to understand co…

the cognitive dissonance of the folks in the insurance industry is what resulted in that execution a few days ago. stop deluding yourself.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#160

Post by CamperBob2 »

lazystar wrote: post #157
slowmovintarget wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So if you had a chance to go back in time to 1929, you'd leave Hitler alive?

Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

Hitler lost the war because he made certain key mistakes -- chasing his country's best scientists out, invading Russia at the wrong time, spending a fortune on gimmicks to murder civilians instead of combat weapons. It's possible that killing Hitler would have paved the way for a more competent, saner leader to emerge.

Post reply on HN