281–290 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the doctor prescribed it, it shouldn’t be the insurance company’s decision to deny it. That’s how it works in most countries. Too bad it’s expensive, but that’s why people pay a lot more than $60/yr for insurance.
I'm genuinely curious, what countries work this way? I've never heard of it, every system has some form of rationing as far as I know.
For example, my father in-law had prostate cancer. His health insurance covers prostate cancer, so the doctor was able to prescribe any medically proven treatment he had access to. The first treatment they tried was the one with highest percentage of success, and then changed it to other treatments depending on how the cancer responded.
Cost was never brought up, and they never heard complaints from the insurance company.
Lots of insurances accessible to middle class families also cover in-testing treatments that have shown success in other countries, if the patient matches conditions for the trial and other approved treatments didn’t work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other only way a price based system will work is if providers are required to show the bill ahead of time, with full insurance coverage and noncoverage clearly laid out, that is binding to the hospital and the insurance company. That must be signed off by a conscious capable representative. Yeah how does that work for emergencies and other situations? It doesn't! Just like hospitals unable to or refuse to disclos…
It's funny that if you talk about the top issues Americans worry about, health care is one of them. What are the top issues as perceived by Republicans and Democrats? They range from gender equality, race, immigration, crime, trans issues - basically anything controversial. Healthcare is less controversial. And there's big buy-in for change by Americans. So what's happening? Are the two parties so bribed by lobbying…
Those are the issues that will drive votes either distinctly, Democratic or Republican.
Neither are the Democrats or the Republicans are actually interested in healthcare because the powers that be and their funders don't want it to change
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need consensus either to convict, or to _declare_ someone not guilty. In the US there is an important distinction between the presumption of innocence, and its declaration in a court of law. Someone with a hung jury or mistrial is still presumed not guilty by the law, but may be tried again for the same crime, because the prohibition against double jeopardy only applies to those cleared of a charge, which mistria…
>no realistic chance of happening twice This is where you lose me. If you have a hung jury that means you have at least an 11/12 chance of it happening again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the article? The drugs did work, but only at the high doses prescribed. In fact I am certain you did not read it, as no decent person could read it and say "but it's crazy to me that people can read this and come away thinking the insurance companies are the bad guys."
I read it, the drugs may have worked but it's possible that one or both were not necessary, or that some other change caused it. The relevant question is bigger than "did it work", it's "was the likely causal improvement enough to justify the cost" These drug combinations are mostly not approved outside the US because of a lack of data
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is about someone getting cutting edge care beyond medical literature from the one of the leading experts in the world. I've got to imagine most health funds would simply not be able to cover that type of care for an individual?
Not sure why this is being downvoted. Universal healthcare is great, but even if you're in Sweden they're not going to fly you over to Minnesota to get experimental treatment that costs $1M/year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead, every survey of Americans shows around 80% are satisfied with their health coverage. Weird how heath coverage is the only thing in America 80% of the people are satisfied with. It's such a nice round number, too. I'm assuming it's men only, or were women polled before Roe v. Wade was dumped?
GP is rounding. It's an approximate centroid of a variety of numbers over time, but pretty consistently in the 70s or 80s.
I'm assuming this is like calculating unemployment rates, where you need to play around with your definitions. Like, services no longer being available can't factor into "satisfaction" in any way.
More concretely, if you have two pharmacies in town and one of them closes, will polling accurately reflect the 0% satisfaction rate engendered? Or is this where we start splitting hairs.
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]
You know what i first thought when i heard this story? "At least he didn't shoot a hospital". You know what my second thought on this? "I hope there is enough hero worshiping for this killer so that mass shooters try their hand at murdering CEO instead, at least it's a single victim" (that is also because 2 days prior, a friend i've met in a youth hostel a few years back was involved in a mass shooting around Chicago).
I won't participate in the hero worship, i despise all killers. But still, am i the only one who had those thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
My parents are none of whom you listed yet they do not have "massive sympathy" for this CEO. Perhaps "everyone" is inaccurate?