UnitedHealth CEO Assassinated
The murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO is a strange story. On the one hand, the killer obviously was taking steps to avoid getting caught. He was wearing a hoodie. He used a silencer. He clearly had an escape plan.
On the other hand, he was wearing a distinctive backpack. He may have left a food wrapper and a water bottle at the scene. And there was writing on each of the three shell casings (the words "deny," "defend," and "depose").
I understand you trust doctors as a class so I won't touch that angle 5 south, but just think about tests.
you can do a battery of ultra expensive tests with extreme urgency (which increases costs) for everyone who comes in with some headache (or any other vague symptom which can rarely be associated with very severe things).
how exactly do you draw the tradeoff line if the doctor has all the power? he would have a moral duty to prescribe a $5k test to deny a 1/20k chance of some very rare problem right?
now multiply that for every patient with every unclear diagnosis early on.
the moment you even attempt to say WAIT A SEC this might be too much you are ALREADY accepting that some rationing is necessary, then it's just about how much rationing and who does the rationing.
The way healthcare is billed is also a significant issue. Which is why the entire system needs to be overhauled from the ground up.
Where have I said that I’m in favor of violence, or even this particular crime? I think you may have leapt to a conclusion that isn’t there, but that’s so you, friend 😀
Give me a break. You don't have to explicitly say the words "I approve of this killing." Your posts on this matter very clearly demonstrate your position: even if you do not expressly approve of the murder (which I am not convinced is the case), you still believe that his death is justified because he supposedly causes massive harm.
I am not going to get into whether this guy is good or bad, as that is obviously a completely different thread (though I would love for you people to live for a day in a world where there is no insurance). This goes further than that. This is not (yet) some third world hell-hole which is run by organized crime, feudal lords, or terrorists. A person extra judicially killed an unpopular figure in the street, and several people in this thread either cheer (such as long-time terrorist apologist Jalfrezi) or are doing mental gymnastics to justify his murder. Is that really the country that you people want to live in?
hm no? that's how you get insane cost bloating, and btw it's impossible to give "the best care" to everyone.
Impossible in terms of real resources.
So somewhere in the process rationing will emerge in some form necessarily.
I mean right now in the USA just *dialysis* is 1% of the federal budget.
Not of public healthcare expenses, of the whole budget.
and that's with rates that are already a lot lower than what insurance companies pay (medicare pays a lot lower)
"Experts estimate that about 12% of people on dialysis have commercial insurance, yet dialysis organizations receive about 40% of their revenue and all of their profits from these commercially insured patients"
Sounds like something is broken there.
"Experts estimate that about 12% of people on dialysis have commercial insurance, yet dialysis organizations receive about 40% of their revenue and all of their profits from these commercially insured patients"
Sounds like something is broken there.
Commercial insurance policies pay significantly more than Medicare or Medicaid, so it stands to reason that profits will be higher with the commercial policy, as opposed to barely break-even with Medicare/Medicaid.
"Experts estimate that about 12% of people on dialysis have commercial insurance, yet dialysis organizations receive about 40% of their revenue and all of their profits from these commercially insured patients"
Sounds like something is broken there.
what's "broken" there, you want them to work for free? or for Medicare to pay more?
the feds are already paying 1% of the federal budget (!!!) by paying it at cost , what do you suggest should be fixed there?
I understand you trust doctors as a class so I won't touch that angle 5 south, but just think about tests.
you can do a battery of ultra expensive tests with extreme urgency (which increases costs) for everyone who comes in with some headache (or any other vague symptom which can rarely be associated with very severe things).
how exactly do you draw the tradeoff line if the doctor has all the power? he would have a moral duty to prescribe a $5k test to deny a 1/20k chance of some very rare proble
Actually I don't blindly trust doctors. They do the best they can to diagnose with the limited information they have but they're not infallible but when the rubber hits the road and I need care I need to put my trust in them and their expertise.
I'm not against common sense in rationing scarce resources but there is a difference between rationing and maximizing profits imo. When enough people feel like they're not getting what they've paid for with life altering consequences things can start to go sideways.
what's "broken" there, you want them to work for free? or for Medicare to pay more?
the feds are already paying 1% of the federal budget (!!!) by paying it at cost , what do you suggest should be fixed there?
Article written in 2021
"It’s no secret that dialysis is incredibly expensive. Each dialysis patient costs about $100,000 a year to treat, which means that Medicare spends over $30 billion a year treating ESRD patients."
2020 federal budget almost 8 trillion.
So 1/2% basically but still a huge number. What's your solution? Even with dialysis you're only expected to live another 3 years or so, that's not in our budget. Here's a shot to take home that will put you to sleep for good once the pain is intolerable for you?
I guess I'd counter with at least give me 1 year's worth of treatment in cash with that shot that I can leave it to my family.
Right but your original statement was that you were surprised about the general hate people have for the insurance companies. Was just giving a common reason I had seen.
I said that I was surprised about how much people hated their insurance companies. That is, I was surprised that they hated their insurance companies enough to want to see the CEO killed. I didn't say that I was surprised that people had negative feelings at all.
I have never said he deserved it or advocated for murder as a way to fix the issue.
There is a difference between celebrating and not grieving. I am not grieving.
I get it, but when you say that the CEO was a murderer, when you imply that the shooter positively affected the behavior of another insurer, and when you state (perhaps incorrectly) that healthcare executives require extraordinary security because they are so vile, it gets into a grey area at the very least.
I get it, but when you say that the CEO was a murderer, when you imply that the shooter positively affected the behavior of another insurer, and when you state (perhaps incorrectly) that healthcare executives require extraordinary security because they are so vile, it gets into a grey area at the very least.
I consider it a fact that he was the current leader of an extraordinarily evil corporation that profits off the suffering of millions of vulnerable human beings.
Two things can be true at once: That killing (except in self defense) is always wrong, and that I am not sad when bad people die.
Secondly, the other insurer made that implication, not me, when they altered their policy within hours of the shooting. And I retracted what I could not verify and wrongly assumed from a CNN article.
If killing obviously evil people clearly saves innocent lives (because it stops them or deters others from doing the same bad stuff) then it is not immoral to kill them (if it doesn't figure to result in even greater downsides.)
Isn’t this the rationalization just about every terrorist uses? How do you truly know you’re not morally blind?
Moral nihilism, the acknowledgment of your own moral blindness, must first be accepted before anyone can become morally righteous.
To add: Nobody’s conscience ever tells them to kill. It’s always a rationalization. Anything can be rationalized.
Actually I don't blindly trust doctors. They do the best they can to diagnose with the limited information they have but they're not infallible but when the rubber hits the road and I need care I need to put my trust in them and their expertise.
I'm not against common sense in rationing scarce resources but there is a difference between rationing and maximizing profits imo. When enough people feel like they're not getting what they've paid for with life altering consequences things can start to
No with trust I meant you don't work under the assumption they are motivated by self interest like everyone else.
I mean for me it's obvious to assume that doctors in a hospital will book as many tests as your insurance will cover even when un-necessary or with a
Absurd tradeoffs, to make the hospital more money, reduce their chances of being sued for malpractice if they misdiagnose and so on.
I work under the assumption that when a potential to profit (financially or otherwise) from other people money exists, most people will pursue that
No with trust I meant you don't work under the assumption they are motivated by self interest like everyone else.
I mean for me it's obvious to assume that doctors in a hospital will book as many tests as your insurance will cover even when un-necessary or with a
Absurd tradeoffs, to make the hospital more money, reduce their chances of being sued for malpractice if they misdiagnose and so on.
I work under the assumption that when a potential to profit (financially or otherwise) from other people
Lol at, "they're bilking patients and defrauding insurance companies with superfluous tests and trying to reduce malpractice."
Lol at, "they're bilking patients and defrauding insurance companies with superfluous tests and trying to reduce malpractice."
Abstract
Background
Medical tests provide important information to guide clinical management. Overtesting, however, may cause harm to patients and the healthcare system, including through misdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives and overdiagnosis. Clinicians are ultimately responsible for test requests, and are therefore ideally positioned to prevent overtesting and its unintended consequences. Through this narrative literature review and workshop discussion with experts at the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference (Sydney, 2019), we aimed to identify and establish a thematic framework of factors that influence clinicians to request non-recommended and unnecessary tests.
Methods
Articles exploring factors affecting clinician test ordering behaviour were identified through a systematic search of MedLine in April 2019, forward and backward citation searches and content experts. Two authors screened abstract titles and abstracts, and two authors screened full text for inclusion. Identified factors were categorised into a preliminary framework which was subsequently presented at the PODC for iterative development.
Results
The MedLine search yielded 542 articles; 55 were included. Another 10 articles identified by forward-backward citation and content experts were included, resulting in 65 articles in total. Following small group discussion with workshop participants, a revised thematic framework of factors was developed:
“Intrapersonal” – fear of malpractice and litigation; clinician knowledge and understanding; intolerance of uncertainty and risk aversion; cognitive biases and experiences; sense of medical obligation
“Interpersonal” – pressure from patients and doctor-patient relationship; pressure from colleagues and medical culture;
“Environment/context” – guidelines, protocols and policies; financial incentives and ownership of tests; time constraints, physical vulnerabilities and language barriers; availability and ease of access to tests; pre-emptive testing to facilitate subsequent care; contemporary medical practice and new technology
The former is fraud; the latter is protecting the doctor, which in turn also protects the patient.
I have a buddy who is a lawyer, whose clients are mostly physicians. The times he has spoken in generalities over what people sue for, I sure as **** understand why doctors would want to be sure to rule out serious illnesses. I also knew of a person whose doctor felt certain tests were unnecessary and six months later it was determined he had advanced cancer.
I just found it was amusing to lump that in with insurance fraud, as I don't think the motivation with defensive medicine is to increase the bill.
psychopathic posting itt. the hell is wrong with you lot
I work under the assumption that when a potential to profit (financially or otherwise) from other people money exists, most people will pursue that
This is kind of the crux of the issue and I completely agree with you.
In the case of healthcare I'd rather that profit or possibly waste of a good profit go to the healthcare workers, infrastructure and the patients I guess now being frivolously overcared for, not the middlemen.
