321–330 of 394 posts
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.
So everyone who messaged you privately in support of your position?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't. In other countries there are private health funds that return all of their profits to their members by simply covering more types of care and lowering premiums, all while still giving their staff very good, very attractive pay. That is clearly a win:win setting without being a government-run entity. A person doesn't need to earn 100M-20…
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?
The gastroenterologist is not the expensive part, either, the expensive part was the manufacturing process for the drug. It would be super cool to invest the billions of profit for this insurance company into developing more efficient ways to produce this category of drug. Alas,
Instead we are investing in finding the most underhanded ways possible to deny medical care for each patient, all the while pretending we are not making medical decisions for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an argument for the public to keep up the pressure. Perhaps it’s time for cleaners to clean
How much do you want to bet life insurance policies will start getting prejudicial about policy holders being executives at health insurance carriers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
where's your evidence of this massive sympathy? I bet even his own family isn't too sad about this - most C-Levels I've worked with are grade A psychopaths whose family doesn't care for them besides money this guy is probably moderately responsible for a significant amount of needless suffering and death
Earlier quoted context omitted.
where's your evidence of this massive sympathy? I bet even his own family isn't too sad about this - most C-Levels I've worked with are grade A psychopaths whose family doesn't care for them besides money this guy is probably moderately responsible for a significant amount of needless suffering and death
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalist structures have a long history of pushing ownership of problems to the powerless individual, then exploiting information asymmetries (and actively obfuscating the truth that would allow for better informed decisions) for profit. Suggesting that the average person should be able to make medical decisions and override their health care provider’s recommendation is ridiculous.
> Suggesting that the average person should be able to make medical decisions and override their health care provider’s recommendation is ridiculous. The situation is similar to taking your out-of-warranty car to a dealer for repairs. Sometimes, you may suspect they’re not being completely honest with you. What do you do in that case? You get a second opinion before agreeing to a costly repair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Thompson is not responsible for the existence of the insurance industry Surely he bears some responsibility for making UHC the worst to deal with and the having the highest rejection rate? > What I do see is a strong push by media ... Why would the media push a narrative against any executive if it wasn't already part of the zeitgeist? The media has consistently exhibited strong class solidarity in my experience. >…
If so, and barring subjectivity and narrative, then not responsibility with a penalty of death. Very obviously.
>Why would the media push a narrative against any executive if it wasn't already part of the zeitgeist? The media has consistently exhibited strong class solidarity in my experience.
Extrajudicial murder and domestic terrorism are part of the zeitgeist of most people? This is your claim?
This is some kind of new standard for a stupid statement. Aside from you being wrong in more than one aspect, I'm not going to debate your sense of media class loyalty. Which you are wrong about in a multifaceted manner.
The fact is that they are pushing the narrative. It's in black and white.
>I'm sure you are aware that doctors are not a monolith. Gp is not making things up: I'll second them with the less-than-sorrowful response elicited by the news of the CEOs demise among administrative staff in my circles (who know how the industry works and what role is performs)
I didn't say that they were. But they are largely, monolithically not insane, not murderer adjacent, and not domestic terrorist adjacent.
Your appeal to authority stories are either total bs or aberrations full of people that should probably be surveilled by law enforcement.
>Gee, I wonder if the public discontent the media and politicians tapped into in 2020 has abated or gotten worse since. It appears you refuse to acknowledge that a huge fraction of the population is unhappy with the status quo across the world (see number of governments voted out). That America has a populist president-elect isn't surprising
Trump supporters are not remotely supportive of this, barring fringe crazies and false identities.
The media didn't "tap into" anything in 2020. They wound-up a vast quasi-criminal underclass and organized domestic terrorists for nine months, and over thirty murders of innocents, running up to an election for a candidate that they were on a war-footing against for the four years prior.
They gave tacit and even direct permission to riot, and political cover for the riots, which is all that these criminals need in any given timeframe to carry out domestic terrorism and extrajudicial murders.
Now they're at it again, right after another election.
People who sympathize with this type of thing are, at the least, domestic terrorism adjacent. If not directly supportive.
You should be monitored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patients must be incentivized to understand their care and question care that is unnecessary and wasteful. The partial solution you mention is the way to go, and if every employer adopted it, it will change the culture, and will at that point become a full solution.
Capitalist structures have a long history of pushing ownership of problems to the powerless individual, then exploiting information asymmetries (and actively obfuscating the truth that would allow for better informed decisions) for profit. Suggesting that the average person should be able to make medical decisions and override their health care provider’s recommendation is ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders. I don't think either the anti-buybacks or the anti-dividend side has a point though. Anyone doing a modicum of finance analysis would be able subtract the value of the dividends paid from the share price, or factor it into the price of the company. Indeed, you see that share prices in companies dip after the dividend ex date, which suggests the market takes this information into account.