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

271–280 of 394 posts

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

#271

Post by bigfatkitten »

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]

> There's massive sympathy for Thompson.

From whom?

Other than LinkedIn posts from his fellow travellers in the health insurance industry, significant public expression of sympathy is hard to find.

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

#273

Post by quitit »

teractiveodular wrote: post #240
tredre3 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely downvoted because it's irrelevant. Very few (if any) private plans in the US would cover it either.

Some plans, like the one in the article, obviously do. This is the paradox of US healthcare: it's probably the most advanced in the world if you/your insurer can foot the bill, but that's an enormous if.

The problem is that the profit making side of the business is becoming dominant. There will always be room for experimental procedures even if the US saw regulation that limited the profit-making abilities of health insurers.

The situation at the moment is that routine, basic medicine is being denied, often algorithmically, along with "pharmabro" types buying up basic medications for the sole purpose of increasing its price. That's starkly different from the development of novel medications demanding high prices to reward R&D efforts.

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

#274

Post by mgraczyk »

maronato wrote: post #270
mgraczyk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not how it works. Which countries work that way? Where can a doctor prescribe untested drugs and have it paid for?

I’m not sure about any countries that allow untested drugs or treatments for conditions not covered by the insurance company. I’m saying that in many countries, like Brazil, an insurance company can’t deny a treatment for a covered condition because it’s too expensive. So, for example, if the insurance covers prostate cancer, the doctor can prescribe any medically proven prostate cancer treatment and the insurance co…

Right but that's not what happened in this case. In this case it wasn't "medically proven" in the right sense. I'm not an expert on Brazil but from what I just read these specific drugs would not be covered

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

#275

Post by mrangle »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #271
mrangle wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> There's massive sympathy for Thompson. From whom? Other than LinkedIn posts from his fellow travellers in the health insurance industry, significant public expression of sympathy is hard to find.

>From whom?

Everyone who doesn't sympathize with violent political extremism.

In other words everyone who isn't a bot, isn't on any number of watchlists, isn't terminally online, isn't a drug addled crazy, or isn't one of the media that exists to stir them up for political purpose.

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

#276

Post by cyberax »

mrangle wrote: post #263
cyberax wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[flagged]

I believe you might be in your own bubble.

Most people quite obviously don't want to incite violence, but at the same time, doctors can't get much sympathy for this particular CEO.

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

#277

Post by [deleted] »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #271
mrangle wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> There's massive sympathy for Thompson. From whom? Other than LinkedIn posts from his fellow travellers in the health insurance industry, significant public expression of sympathy is hard to find.

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by tredre3 »

mancerayder wrote: post #216
abigail95 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Travel insurance is cheap, effective, and available for europeans to purchase in their contry of residence. Using the health services of another country and refusing to pay in an asshole move.

People don't like price gouging. If you get into a taxi where somehow there's a misunderstanding about the price or opaqueness when you get in, and suddenly when it's time to get out there's some crazy price the driver is requesting, that makes you feel cheated, well you'll feel like not paying or going to the police. These things happen all the time when traveling. Why do health services somehow get a free ticket to…

> Why do health services somehow get a free ticket to cheat?

In the vast majority of western countries, a tourist would need to pay more than 250usd to receive the services described by GP. Even when a country has UHC it rarely(never?) covers tourists. A quick google suggests prices in the 1000-3000usd range for Canada, the UK, and Germany, for example (an ER visit with blood tests + follow up).

It's just expensive to provide urgent care and tests. Not having travel insurance (fairly cheap!) and then refusing to pay for services is, indeed, a dick move.

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

#279

Post by IncreasePosts »

wiml wrote: post #251
IncreasePosts wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

My justification I guess is repeatedly seeing various commenters on certain sites espousing the same things in almost the same language. Then some event happened in the real world and they all start asking themselves "how could this happen", again, commonly in similar language. Meanwhile, I'm shocked that those people didn't see X.

Sure, it's possible to acquire my magnificent skills, by just going out and interacting with a wide swath of people in the real world.

Even, instead of thinking that you're getting any kind of signal about society when you read the same meme comment on Reddit/Twitter or whatever, just imagine you actually have no idea, even if you've read the 5000th tweet expressing the same idea

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

#280

Post by bigfatkitten »

Waterluvian wrote: post #15
griomnib wrote: post #6

No jury will convict the shooter, I suspect he’ll “resist arrest” and never make it to a court room for that reason.

If the shooter is a contract killer I think the potential for jury nullification plummets. I also think it’s impossible to predict any way. But I can definitely see that nullification is a real possibility.

Seems unlikely that he's be a contract killer. He clearly had minimal experience and no formal training in the use of firearms.
Post reply on HN