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

311–320 of 394 posts

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

#311

Post by lenerdenator »

gruez wrote: post #241
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…

>The company also has a 1.53% dividend yield[1]. I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low? >If you're paying a significant chunk of your yearly earnings to be covered by UNH, you expect the money you paid to go towards providing you with service. Instead, tens of millions of it goes towards a handful of individuals UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year.…

> I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low?

Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner.

> UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year. "tens of millions" is a rounding error.

"Tens of millions" is in reference to the cost of their higher-ups' compensation.

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

#312

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wat10000 wrote: post #268
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 virtuo…

This sounds an awful lot like “don’t have opinions, because other people will have different opinions.” Ok, someone will take pleasure in the murder of someone I think doesn’t deserve it. So what? Obviously I don’t like that, but people think all kinds of stuff I don’t like. Why should this particular opinion change mine? Virtually everyone would take pleasure in someone’s murder. Osama bin Laden, say. Hitler, if we…

> sounds an awful lot like “don’t have opinions, because other people will have different opinions.”

Not at all. Our healthcare system is corrupt. That doesn’t excuse murder. Bin Laden was offed by a state. Depending on your morals, that is or isn’t different. But those who equate a serial killer with a soldier are in the stark, stark minority.

> little surprising to find out that so many Americans consider this guy to be worthy

Worthy of wealth != worthy of life. If you think you can judge life or death for other humans, sure, fine. We are very, very different people.

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

#313

Post by lenerdenator »

peitho_pls wrote: post #148
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…

> People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't Out of curiosity, What makes you think executive compensation can be easily cut? Wouldn't the shareholders happily do that if they could?

I don't think it can be easily cut. You have a bunch of free riders (shareholders) who are insuring that their person of choice puts them first by showering them with compensation packages. There's lots of people on that gravy train.

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

#314

Post by JumpCrisscross »

DangitBobby wrote: post #129
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…

I don't know a single real person who felt bad for him.

Right. I also know several people who know no pro-abortion people, zero gay people, and nobody who is pro-Israel and not a flaming racist. We’re each in our bubbles.

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

#315

Post by mgraczyk »

maxerickson wrote: post #309
mgraczyk wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The combination has not been tested in a way that could show efficacy, as far as I can tell I'm not against experimenting with new drugs, I just don't think we should force insurers to pay since 99% of the time the experiments will not work We should move toward a pay for performance model but not torch the cost controls while we're at it

Why not force society (via insurance premiums) to pay for some testing? It's not like combining drugs with different mechanisms is a stupid experiment. The gold standard for testing the combination would be to test it against the standard of care, so it's fairly precious to complain that the doctor and patient here don't have a big enough pool.

We do, and it's ongoing, and it's really really expensive and getting worse

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

#316

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #135
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…

Msm won't say the quiet part out loud if it involves corporate power, because msm is a corporate power themselves. Everyone who has stepped in a hospital as provider or patient knows an insurance executives job is to quietly kill hundreds to thousands of people a year and profit from it. Of course there's oil companies, cigarettes, alcohol, guns, weapons, and a lot of other industries that do this. Because the real q…

> Msm won't say the quiet part out loud if it involves corporate power

You have the incentives backwards. Nobody is thinking of the collective. The story that sells today is David v Goliath. If you want a speaking gig on cable television, you need to help turn this murder into a symbol. (And no judgement. Media is media.)

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

#317

Post by vacuity »

wat10000 wrote: post #181
benmmurphy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have an infinite supply of health care and there is a strong demand so there is always going to be some form of rationing going on. There are always going to be people with chronic life ruining conditions that are going to get a raw deal under whatever system you propose to distribute the limited supply of healthcare. It seems like someone is always going to have a justification to kill someone whether its a…

There’s a huge difference between the inevitable random crazies driven to madness because they can’t handle their unfortunate but unavoidable circumstances, and abusing the entire population on such a scale that when someone murders an executive in broad daylight, the prevailing public mood is “serves him right.”

If (according to some) a woman wearing revealing clothes deserves to be raped, and (to most, hopefully) a drunk driver deserves imprisonment and paying any victims, what does someone who has knowingly and intentionally participated in a scheme leading to the deaths of thousands and suffering of millions for personal profit deserve?

I myself don't agree to the death penalty or any killing if it doesn't serve to thwart an immediate and severe danger. We shall take it as a given that this killing doesn't fall under the latter, or perhaps even a somewhat more generous definition. But at the same time, it would be infeasible to have the CEO "brought to justice". To have him sentenced in court, his assets paid out, and the company reformed. Between nothing at all happening (except protests) and the CEO being killed, which is the better choice? If, all else being equal, you could choose one world or the other, which choice is better?

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

#318

Post by JumpCrisscross »

astrolx wrote: post #287
teractiveodular wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'd be flown to Stockholm. Or within EU I may expect.

Ha. No. The Perssons aren’t major donors to the Cleveland Clinic for no reason.

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

#319

Post by mrangle »

Freedom2 wrote: post #290
mrangle wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> Everyone My parents are none of whom you listed yet they do not have "massive sympathy" for this CEO. Perhaps "everyone" is inaccurate?

[flagged]

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

#320

Post by IncreasePosts »

standardUser wrote: post #295
IncreasePosts wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually have no sure idea what the motives of the individual were. There's the obvious angle. Then, maybe Thompson paid someone to kill him, so his family could get an insurance payout. Maybe Thompson was fucking the shooter's ex girlfriend, and he wanted to mislead investigators as to why Thompson was killed. Maybe it's a Russian operation to sow discord in the US. Etc

We have a good idea. Not no idea. And we know exactly how people are responding to the killing, regardless of motive, so we don't have to split hairs on that at all.

We know how people chronically on social media are responding to the killing
Post reply on HN