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

61–70 of 394 posts

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

#61

Post by talldayo »

Yeul wrote: post #33
Fizzadar wrote: post #12

It’s bullshit like this that makes me realise how lucky we are in countries that have public health care. Sure it has problems but private systems seem to have zero advantage for the average person. Pay more for less effectiveness AND a bunch of people get nothing.

There are people here on HN that no doubt make a lot of money working for Google. The idea that they are treated equally to a homeless man is not something they would want. It is no coincidence that universal healthcare was introduced during a time when the elite were recovering from WW2.

> The idea that they are treated equally to a homeless man is not something they would want.

Au contraire. In America, homeless people are afraid of going to the hospital lest they accidentally recieve the same quality of care as a Google employee without the Google copay.

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

#62

Post by threemux »

griomnib wrote: post #44
threemux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so sure. It's interesting how quickly the places where this ghoulish view is proliferating (Reddit) have forgotten what they learned a month ago. The Internet is not reality and online posts are not a representative sample of the population. Instead, every survey of Americans shows around 80% are satisfied with their health coverage.

If they aren’t sick and haven’t had to use the system for life saving care, then the numbers from the same surveys you cite are VASTLY different. Please don’t cherry pick misleading data.

I guess you and I have different definitions of vastly. Even 68% people who say they are in "fair" or "poor" health say they're satisfied:

https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/poll-finding/kff-surve...

There's nothing misleading about the KFF data, which has been going for quite some time now. If you recall (I know it seems like a lifetime ago), Obama got in trouble for lying that people could keep their plan if they liked it. If so many hated their plan, why did he pay such a heavy political price? Why would he even have to lie in the first place?

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

#63

Post by bc569a80a344f9c »

bbqfog wrote: post #43
threemux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so sure. It's interesting how quickly the places where this ghoulish view is proliferating (Reddit) have forgotten what they learned a month ago. The Internet is not reality and online posts are not a representative sample of the population. Instead, every survey of Americans shows around 80% are satisfied with their health coverage.

No, "every survey" doesn't suggest 80% of Americans are satisfied with their health coverage. Can you site this data? Every person I've ever met IRL has hated the health industry with a burning passion. As you would expect given the exorbitant prices on insurance and care. Also, no one enjoys having their employer hold so much leverage in their life as for most people health insurance is tied to their job.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/468176/americans-sour-healthcar...

There’s a huge difference between how people view health care in general, and their own health insurance. According to the linked survey, in 2023 it was notable that only 72% of people had a favorable view of their own health insurance. In recent decades that has indeed sat around 80%, as OP claimed.

Again, that’s their _own_ insurance, while views of health insurance in general are quite worse, similar to how most people think congress is a shitshow yet rank their own representatives much higher.

It’s an interesting dissonance.

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

#64

Post by riiii »

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.

Yep. In today's world where everything is polarized to the extreme this seems to be unifying people. I don't think anyone had it on their bingo cards for 2024.

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

#65

Post by robertlagrant »

loeg wrote: post #53
griomnib wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you familiar with sampling bias.

Based on what I've read here they aren't.

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

#66

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ConspiracyFact wrote: post #2

Horrifying. But also horrifying that treatment costs so much. Supposedly we have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because it costs so much to discover new treatments, but there has to be a great deal of inefficiency there. Are we getting a 99% solution for $X when we could be getting a 95% solution for $X/10?

Perhaps we are, but the treatment regimen described in the article sounds like one of those 4 percentage points missing from the 95% solution. A custom-made cocktail of two drugs, each requiring a special biologic manufacturing process and each far above the standard recommended dose? It seems very plausible that this would not be economical to produce for 1/10 the price.

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

#67

Post by loeg »

dboreham wrote: post #3
ConspiracyFact wrote: post #2

Horrifying. But also horrifying that treatment costs so much. Supposedly we have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because it costs so much to discover new treatments, but there has to be a great deal of inefficiency there. Are we getting a 99% solution for $X when we could be getting a 95% solution for $X/10?

> Supposedly we have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because it costs so much to discover new treatments Big pharma disinformation? Perhaps most new treatment research is government funded (and by governments of other countries).

The vast majority of new therapy R&D expenses are paid for by "big pharma."

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

#68

Post by loeg »

croissants wrote: post #34
dboreham wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Supposedly we have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because it costs so much to discover new treatments Big pharma disinformation? Perhaps most new treatment research is government funded (and by governments of other countries).

Do you have evidence for "most new treatment research is government funded (and by governments of other countries)"? My understanding is that the opposite is true: big pharmaceutical companies foot most of the bill for developing new drugs, then US-based insurers pay high costs, and most "other countries" enjoy much lower prices because US healthcare is effectively subsidizing their drug prices.

You are correct.

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

#69

Post by spondylosaurus »

Dalewyn wrote: post #11
ConspiracyFact wrote: post #2

Horrifying. But also horrifying that treatment costs so much. Supposedly we have to let drug companies charge extravagant prices because it costs so much to discover new treatments, but there has to be a great deal of inefficiency there. Are we getting a 99% solution for $X when we could be getting a 95% solution for $X/10?

>But also horrifying that treatment costs so much. My mother underwent chemotherapy for her cancer. According to the statements from her insurance company, each round of chemotherapy cost as much as a new luxury car before hospital vs. insurance negotiations. Yeah. The value of health insurance isn't just the offloading of expenses, it's also their power to tell hospitals to get fucking bent with ludicrous bills.

To be fair to hospitals, some of those bills are ludicrous because of insurance. If they know that insurers will only ever pay 10% of the listed cost, they'll make the listed cost seem a lot bigger so that that 10% payout is comparatively bigger too.

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

#70

Post by lenerdenator »

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 similar amounts of money.

The company also has a 1.53% dividend yield[1].

The average American's lifetime earnings are $1.8 million for men, and $1.1 million for women[2]. That is to say, within five years, Mr. Thompson would likely have made ten times the average American's lifetime economic output, post-tax.

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, and regardless of how the company does financially, participants in the equities market will get some of your money, and you'll possibly be denied the service you paid for in order to make that happen.

People will say that this is necessary to remain competitive, but it just isn't. People with severe health problems or loved ones with severe health problems aren't asking these executives or shareholders to live like paupers; they just expect the service they paid for. When there's something as life-ruining as chronic health conditions dogging you every single day, there's a chance you snap, and in the US, there's fairly trivial access to tools to help you do that.

[0] https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/health-news/the-salary-bonu... [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/unh/dividend-h... [2] https://www.theknowlesgroup.org/blog/average-american-lifeti...

Post reply on HN