Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

You must have very limited experience with community hospitals. Heck, many of the smaller systems don't even work that way.

I have a lot of experience with many hospitals and I promise you majority of their physicians are hospital employed. Now, every few years salaries and contacts are renegotiated and salary is configured according to their previous years productivity per RVU, but intimately, it is the hospital that decides what to pay the physicians. Very few are independent

They're not independent, but outside of the major medical centers, the specialists are not employed by the hospital. They either work for groups that contract with the hospital, or they have to accept unassigned call at the hospital in order to maintain privileges there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seriously, PP? The mother is telling you her child had a brain tumor, and you're arguing as to whether an MRI was justified? Something is very wrong with you if you want to argue this point.

Mothers aren't usually the most objective source for cost-effective and appropriate medical treatment.

Oh look a troll trying to triggers mothers by saying they’re emotional and not qualified to say something is wrong with their child.

Yawn. Did mommy finish making your cinnamon rolls yet? Time to go upstairs and eat!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

You must have very limited experience with community hospitals. Heck, many of the smaller systems don't even work that way.

I have a lot of experience with many hospitals and I promise you majority of their physicians are hospital employed. Now, every few years salaries and contacts are renegotiated and salary is configured according to their previous years productivity per RVU, but intimately, it is the hospital that decides what to pay the physicians. Very few are independent

They're not independent, but outside of the major medical centers, the specialists are not employed by the hospital. They either work for groups that contract with the hospital, or they have to accept unassigned call at the hospital in order to maintain privileges there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

So do a CT scan, and then a MRI? You sound like a brain doctor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

You must have very limited experience with community hospitals. Heck, many of the smaller systems don't even work that way.

I have a lot of experience with many hospitals and I promise you majority of their physicians are hospital employed. Now, every few years salaries and contacts are renegotiated and salary is configured according to their previous years productivity per RVU, but intimately, it is the hospital that decides what to pay the physicians. Very few are independent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m amazed at the number of people who think health insurance is the main problem, as if the hospitals just honest businessmen submitting bills for their services and the docs as well. The whole system is a sh&t show. Cardiologist in the US make like a half a million, in the Uk it’s like £150K.

People should be mad at their legislators for allowing it to get this way. This is not to say that insurers don’t have their problems but they are but one cog in the wheel of grift and dysfunction.

Cardiologists actually provide an extremely valuable service. Insurance companies suck money out of the system. Do you really not see the difference?

In many cases they keep the system from ripping people off and in many cases make sure that people don’t get the wrong med or unnecessary procedures. I know you think your doctor is the bees knees and would never do anything unethical or wrong but you would be wrong. Consider the fact that so many physician groups have sold out to PE who are managing care by the way in which they manage the practice. The docs didn’t sell because they are concerned about the good of the patients - they wanted a paycheck. There are no innocents in this game.

Yep. Private equity is all over specialized surgical and medical groups …. these doctors are money machines. Cha Ching! $$ Smart doctors know how to game the system. Spend 15 minutes with a patient, quick exam, order scans. Done. Next!

Even large hospital groups order needless scans, ultrasounds, blood work, procedures, unnecessary surgeries…it’s insane.

Yes—I’m generally pro doctor but anyone who thinks that doctors don’t need checks on spending is naive. The nursing homes are notorious for ordering useless tests and therapies to pad their profits. And lots of doctors will just write whatever test or script their patient wants because it’s easier than arguing or because they are making a profit (remember the opioid epidemic?). Everyone would like to have great doctors who only prescribe medically necessary stuff and only do so in their best interest, and have affordable health care that covers all medically necessary treatments, even if those treatments cost millions of dollars a year for a single condition. But it’s not reality. Yes, let’s crack down on the bad actors, but this generalized hate for health insurance providers is just so naive and dangerous. Does anyone remember the world before health insurance? Working class people just died if they got anything that needed more than a doctors visit. Pooling of risk is a good thing—that’s what insurance is. But insurance companies have to follow their written policies.

There are monsters at every level of the system. This hospital allowed this doctor to misdiagnose and kill patients because he made money for them.

The opioid epidemic is due in part to physicians being courted by pharma sales people and the fact that no one was watching what was going on so the pill mills were allowed to dispense like crazy and Medicaid just paid. I’m not saying health insurance companies are angels by any means but there are plenty of bad actors out there.


https://www.propublica.org/article/thomas-weiner-montana-st-peters-hospital-oncology

Also look at the stories about patients being kept in psych wards so that the monstrous doctors could keep billing insurance. It's sickening. The whole system from insurance to hospital to medical staff, is corrupt.

And Americans need to stop thinking this country has the most envied medical system in the world, because anyone who has actually traveled and needed medical care in other countries, knows it's BS. I have friends currently traveling to a couple of other countries for advanced medical treatments that the US doesn't offer.

You are delusional. I am a doctor we are being forced by insurance companies to release patients before they are ready and /or before we think they are stabilized enough to stay out of the hospital. Sure- there may be some exceptions, but trust me, docs get no pay outs from this. Our reimbursements and pay are declining, but we keep working. We see NPs and PAs constantly ordering unnecessary tests and prescribing controlled stimulants because that’s what patients want and they don’t have the background and education to know better , and we’re constantly having to fix it. You all know nothing about health care and it’s so evident. These for profit entities are killing us and you. And you just take it and try to lay blame on the very people (and the only people) working to keep you alive.

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.

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.

I think the answer is yes, UHC is worse. And the whole notion of for-profit health insurance is distressing to many.

As for the exec, I think there’s a good case that the super rich CEOs are in some ways inherently bad. The pay packages are obscene and they put their own profit ahead of the good of the people who need health care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

You must have very limited experience with community hospitals. Heck, many of the smaller systems don't even work that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

Which is a to of radiation, and a good way to induce a brain tumor. CT is generally used for injuries where laying still is difficult or you need rapid diagnoses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You know who gave them painkillers? The doctors. The doctors who either took the word of a hot girl/guy from with a BA in bio from the pharma companies and/or didn’t do their homework and/or the doctors who saw a chance to make bank by just giving them out to everyone. So funny how the doctors always seem to get off scott free.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

Again, many insurance companies require prior authorization before MRIs because they expect cheaper diagnostic tests to be performed first. In the case of a suspected brain tumor, they might expect a CT scan to be done first. In other body parts, they like expect an ultrasound.

A cranial ultrasound is worthless. I suspect you work on business side of insurance company, these exactly the foolishness short sighted trades they suggest that waste time and money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

Which is a to of radiation, and a good way to induce a brain tumor. CT is generally used for injuries where laying still is difficult or you need rapid diagnoses.