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

251–260 of 394 posts

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

#251

Post by wiml »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #228
kelseyfrog wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, this is just moving the goalposts from "it's an Internet bubble" to "it's your personal bubble". I don't buy it. Neo-*ism ideologies share a common myth - the myth of necessary order. This forms a contradiction that if enforced by more order will self-correct with stocastic violence. Sorry, but that's simply reality.

"internet bubbles" don't exist solely on the Internet, they exist in the minds of people spending a lot of time on the internet on certain sites. They manifest on the Internet commonly. But they also manifest in the "real world" when those people communicate with others. Go ahead and deceive yourself that you're not in an echo chamber. I'm sure that will help you understand reality better.

You imply that you have access to some unvarnished truth, unlike the other commenters who are trapped in their bubbles. What is your justification for this belief? Is it possible for other people to have access to this higher truth, or is it something innate to you?

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

#252

Post by trilbyglens »

lenerdenator wrote: post #70

The events of the last week are just what happens when a company decides to refuse to meet its customers in the marketplace of sane ideas. You could probably have gotten away with what UNH did if the money wasn't so ridiculous. Thompson himself had a compensation package worth $10.2 million[0] a year. It's reasonable to think that other c-suiters at the company, along with those of its parent organization, made simil…

A-fucking-men

Preach brother

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

#253

Post by cyberax »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #247
rqtwteye wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first sentence is already wrong. With employer based insurance the company is the customer. The patient is the product.

As an Australian, I have no idea, but can't then a patient sue their employer if they don't receive the care they were promised? Doesn't that make the employer responsible for an employees health? I can guess the answer.

"Sue"? What a quaint notion.

Mandatory binding arbitration is what you can get now.

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

#254

Post by maronato »

mgraczyk wrote: post #233
maronato wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Brazil, health is a constitutional right. Brazil has free, universal, and unlimited healthcare. Public hospitals in large cities are on the same level as private hospitals, and both are excellent. If you want faster non-emergency care from a private hospital, you can purchase health insurance. Doctors don’t need approval from the insurance company to perform treatments or prescribe drugs. If the drug or treatment…

The therapy described in the article would not be allowed in Brazil https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/12/7/2672

That’s not what the article says. It says patients have access to the treatment for free, but sometimes delivery can be delayed by a few months due to shortages. The study only considered people without health insurance and says people with health insurance don’t face the same supply shortages.

> Most patients (n = 172, 83.9%) reported at least one failed delivery of biological medicine in the last year, with a single shortage in forty-two patients (24.4%), at least two shortages in forty-seven patients (27.3%), and three or more shortages in seventy-eight patients (45.3%). The average time to regularize the distribution was up to 1 month in 44 cases (25.6%), up to 2 months in 64 cases (37.2%), and more than 3 months in 56 patients (32.6%)

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

#255

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hypeatei wrote: post #155
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you spoken to regular people not terminally online? They have no sympathy for the CEO Everyone I have spoken to has no sympathy for him as a CEO but sympathy for him as a human. He is wrong and the healthcare system is broken. But this was also murder. If your sense of empathy is so fucked that you’re pro murder, you need to speak to a professional. (If you’re struggling with this and don’t want to let hate tu…

> you need to speak to a professional I love this dismissive attitude that anyone who fails to empathize with someone who makes tens of millions a year AND denies health insurance claims is somehow mentally ill. Get real.

> anyone who fails to empathize with someone who makes tens of millions a year

I’m not saying feel sorry for him. I’m not even saying don’t indulge in schadenfreude. Where you should know it crosses the line is in celebrating the killing and the killer. Because I promise you that someone with equal or more conviction in their righteousness would similarly take pleasure in the murder if someone you find, if not virtuous, not deserving to be murdered.

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

#256

Post by mgraczyk »

maronato wrote: post #254
mgraczyk wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The therapy described in the article would not be allowed in Brazil https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/12/7/2672

That’s not what the article says. It says patients have access to the treatment for free, but sometimes delivery can be delayed by a few months due to shortages. The study only considered people without health insurance and says people with health insurance don’t face the same supply shortages. > Most patients (n = 172, 83.9%) reported at least one failed delivery of biological medicine in the last year, with a singl…

Where does it say "free"?

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

#257

Post by mrangle »

mrangle wrote: post #189
lenerdenator wrote: post #70

The events of the last week are just what happens when a company decides to refuse to meet its customers in the marketplace of sane ideas. You could probably have gotten away with what UNH did if the money wasn't so ridiculous. Thompson himself had a compensation package worth $10.2 million[0] a year. It's reasonable to think that other c-suiters at the company, along with those of its parent organization, made simil…

> just what happens It's not "just what happens". That's a politically opportunistic narrative that seeks to incite violence and murder. No one knows why the CEO was killed. None of this type of reasoning justifies or begins to explain the murder even if this were the reason in the shooter's head. Morals aside, it's nonsensical reasoning in total. You're justifying and providing propaganda support for domestic terror…

I'm fine with downvoting of this and electronically documenting your disagreement. Let's sincerely get to -200 dislikes, for the record.

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

#258

Post by cyberax »

mrangle wrote: post #249
inejge wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one knows why the CEO was killed. Whatever the shooter's motive was, you can't deny that the public mood is ugly. There was scarcely any sympathy for Thompson, just an avalanche of gleeful mockery and complaints about healthcare claim handling. The problems are widespread enough that having someone snap because, say, their parents' claims have been denied, is completely believable.

[flagged]

> The gleeful mockery is largely from anonymous accounts. I remember when the same type of thing was attributed to "Russian bots" after the 2016 election.

I worked in medical-adjacent areas for a decade. I dated a doctor, and I asked him what people feel in his hospital about that.

He said that basically NOBODY has any sympathy for this CEO. The most concern is at the level of "we shouldn't condone murders". And you don't see even uglier statements because people are very much aware of medical ethics boards.

And that's an opinion from a highly-paid medical professional.

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

#259

Post by tredre3 »

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.

> 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.

I felt the same way about the American election. Yet, Trump won. Online consensus on social media means nothing.

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

#260

Post by laimewhisps »

gruez wrote: post #250
laimewhisps wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the state's monopoly on violence doesn't protect people, people will find a way to protect themselves.

This goes both ways. See: south africa where every rich dude has a private security detail.

This sounds like the same way because if rich people need protection, they must be under threat of people who feel exploited by them. Just like the OP.
Post reply on HN