Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

I don’t know if the CEO is a bad person or not. What’s concerning to me is that people seem to think that he is a bad person just because he runs a health insurance company.

I just don’t understand what people think the alternatives are. Should we have a system where every claim is approved, and people get whatever care they want? That would be great but you could expect much much higher premiums. I also like the idea of non-profit healthcare much better than for-profit healthcare — but that’s essentially what we used to have and most of those non-profit healthcare systems have gone out of business. UPMC is nominally non-profit but operates basically like a for-profit business in all respects.

I just truly do not understand what people want. This country has pretty definitely rejected a socialized medicine model. And everyone was so upset when premiums went up after the ACA put breaks on insurance company denials for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits.

Is UHC demonstrably worse than the other healthcare options out there? Or is the hate just for the system generally? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage, as do a bunch of other retirees I know, and they’ve never had trouble with claim denial despite have pretty complicated medical needs.

Anonymous wrote:
The WP editorial board (who was told? Or wouldn’t? endorse a presidential candidate) wrote a whole column on why the response is uncalled for and that health insurances are a complex matter. Last I read, the comment section was tearing their arguments to pieces and saying they missed the point. I agree that his murder was wrong, plain and simple. But it’s interesting to compare the media vs the internet’s response. One is beholden to the rich.

Murdering proles en masse by denying health insurance claims, feeding them pain killers, and via drone strikes and carpet bombing are CLASSY and ACCEPTABLE. Pulling a pistol and doing it face to face is not.

Regards,
The Bezos Post & every corporate media outlet

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Um…most doctors are hospital employed and salaried. The days of self employed doctors are largely over

No, not the specialists that do the procedures. Heck, often the intensivists and ED physicians are outsourced.

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

The only people doing this are the people with the Cadillac plans. I can assure you that those of us who have the huge deductibles are not ordering extra tests. This is the problem with having healthcare tied to employers. The employer heavily subsidizes the plan so the insured person doesn’t understand the true cost of healthcare.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting watching the media on this…the Atlantic’s first article was titled something like “Fury at the Healthcare System is justified (murder is not). Then it was changed to “the coursening of American Society”, then pulled from the front page altogether. I believe you can still google search it but very interesting it’s no longer front and center. I agree that corporations are putting their thumb on the scale of the media narrative.

The Atlantic, what BS speculation run rampant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean if you think the CEO had it coming then you have to think that all the people who work at UHC should be killed also. They all have a part in it. They all made the choice to work there.

I really feel for the people who are on the front lines at these companies — the ones who have zero power to do anything but recite whatever their computer system tells them, as they listen to patients and families cry desperately into the phone (been there, done that). They, too, are being absolutely dehumanized by this grotesque system.

They choose to work there. They aren’t migrants picking peppers in the field. These are people, most of who have advanced education.

Please tell me who is responsible and who is not? Is it just the CEO and the doctors who work there who took an oath to do no harm are just “following orders”? Are all the top managers culpable? What about the secretaries? What about the shareholders who have been enriching themselves with these practices? Where’s the line of who should be killed and who shouldn’t? Please tell me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

That is absolutely sickening. I cannot imagine the rage and fear you’d have. I’m sorry and hope s/he’s doing well. xx

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Um…most doctors are hospital employed and salaried. The days of self employed doctors are largely over

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

Healthcare CEO’s are responsible for denying claim and killing people. It is manslaughter.

Why doesn’t the hospital provide the care at a cheaper rate? The hospital CEOs also make millions while they understaff hospitals. Why are you supporting them? If you are dying of dehydration and can’t afford a bottle of water do you blame the person who won’t give you $1,000 for a bottle of water or the person charging $1,000 for a bottle of water?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

Look at it this way. If somehow UHC were a sole proprietorship instead of a corporation, the person who owned the company would go to jail for negligence or malpractice.

Instead, the CEO of a corporation would never face consequences for the same decisions because it was the corporation 'who' committed the crime. Corporations are people in every way except never being sent to jail. Our corporatized system leaves no person accountable, and our justice system isn't willing to go after the criminal breach of contract.

I'm against vigilantism, but no one is held accountable. Our gov justice system should be going after these corporations

Anonymous wrote:I mean if you think the CEO had it coming then you have to think that all the people who work at UHC should be killed also. They all have a part in it. They all made the choice to work there.

I really feel for the people who are on the front lines at these companies — the ones who have zero power to do anything but recite whatever their computer system tells them, as they listen to patients and families cry desperately into the phone (been there, done that). They, too, are being absolutely dehumanized by this grotesque system.

You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered