Was This Personal or Professional: (UHC CEO murder)

[MacMadame]

Despite your opinions, these things are absolutely legal in the USA. What’s unconscionable to you is not unconscionable to others. The morality arguments are the same ones used by jihadists, gay bashers, abortion doctor killers, Nazis, Putin, etc. I don’t know anyone who believes that they personally are immoral or that their morals are wrong.

I am invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[Rob]

But we do have a for profit system in health care. People think healthcare should not be for profit when the bill comes, but every time something close to socialized medicine is proposed, there is an outcry against it, and it is shot down. Lobbying, scare tactics that make individuals nervous they can’t choose their own providers, and the high cost of provider education/malpractice insurance that can’t be unwound overnight, etc. Many things contribute. I’d prefer a European system, but taxes will be higher. Lower than paying health care costs, but tax is a dirty word in the US. The reality is that you must understand your plan/policy and set your expectations accordingly if something terrible happens and you need cutting edge or experimental treatments. And be ready to fight the fights on what really is the standard of care or UCR. It might be unconscionable to many, but it’s reality.

 

[sk9tingfan]

But we do have a for profit system in health care. People think healthcare should not be for profit when the bill comes, but every time something close to socialized medicine is proposed, there is an outcry against it, and it is shot down. Lobbying, scare tactics that make individuals nervous they can’t choose their own providers, and the high cost of provider education/malpractice insurance that can’t be unwound overnight, etc. Many things contribute. I’d prefer a European system, but taxes will be higher. Lower than paying health care costs, but tax is a dirty word in the US. The reality is that you must understand your plan/policy and set your expectations accordingly if something terrible happens and you need cutting edge or experimental treatments. And be ready to fight the fights on what really is the standard of care or UCR. It might be unconscionable to many, but it’s reality.

My MBA Thesis; circa 1980.

 

[BittyBug]

But we do have a for profit system in health care. People think healthcare should not be for profit when the bill comes, but every time something close to socialized medicine is proposed, there is an outcry against it, and it is shot down. Lobbying, scare tactics that make individuals nervous they can’t choose their own providers, and the high cost of provider education/malpractice insurance that can’t be unwound overnight, etc. Many things contribute.

Including the illogical assumption that people make that somehow, for them, things will be different. It's the same delusion that leads people to gamble - the misguided notion that they'll be the ones to beat the odds.

I’d prefer a European system, but taxes will be higher. Lower than paying health care costs, but tax is a dirty word in the US.

Another example of collective stupidity. What difference does it make how the money comes of your paycheck?

Door #1: Lower taxes but relatively health insurance premium and overall lower net pay
Door #2: Higher taxes but overall higher net pay

Average idiot: I'll take Door #1 for lower taxes.

The reality is that you must understand your plan/policy and set your expectations accordingly if something terrible happens and you need cutting edge or experimental treatments. And be ready to fight the fights on what really is the standard of care or UCR. It might be unconscionable to many, but it’s reality.

Except this only works for a select segment of the population that (a) has the aptitude to navigate our unnecessarily complex healthcare system, (b) has the time to do so, and (c) has the financial resources to pay for uncovered care. Otherwise you're left to either forego care or assume crushing debt, or both.

But to me the most vexing issue is that for all of its cost and frustration, our system produces worse outcomes than those of most developed countries that have socialized healthcare. But of course, "American exceptionalism" deludes people into thinking that somehow for them things will be different.

As you said, we have the solutions but lack the political will to make any material changes because our politicians are bought and paid for, and increasingly, our media sources are as well.

 

[Private Citizen]

Average idiot: I'll take Door #1 for lower taxes.

Maybe average idiot realizes that public systems won’t cover what their private insurance does, or with the same ease.

Maybe average idiot also realizes that pretty soon they’ll be paying all of those taxes and some type of private insurance, as happens in many countries with socialized medicine.

And maybe average idiot realizes that once society establishes this obligation, we’ll all have to pay for it, even if that means taxes continuing to rise exponentially.

I’m with average idiot in terms of funnelling as little money as possible into the government, which has shown poor ability to manage or deliver anything, and of minimizing any “rights” that could result in a spiral of unpredictable costs for government.

Socialized medicine won’t succeed in the US because the majority of the population realizes that they’ll be paying more for less, with the benefits going disproportionately to “have nots.” It’s the same reason that public transit and other infrastructure lags behind. People don’t want to pay more for others when their own needs are met. And they sure as heck don’t want to give up their own benefits AND pay more.

Otherwise you're left to either forego care or assume crushing debt, or both.

We will all be doing that in a socialized medicine model….

But to me the most vexing issue is that for all of its cost and frustration, our system produces worse outcomes than those of most developed countries that have socialized healthcare.

Does this control for factors like obesity, sedentary lifestyles, consumption of processed foods, drug addiction, etc? You can’t do whatever you want, ignore obvious risk factors, and then hope for the competitive outcomes.

 

[PRlady]

Maybe average idiot realizes that public systems won’t cover what their private insurance does, or with the same ease.

Maybe average idiot also realizes that pretty soon they’ll be paying all of those taxes and some type of private insurance, as happens in many countries with socialized medicine.

And maybe average idiot realizes that once society establishes this obligation, we’ll all have to pay for it, even if that means taxes continuing to rise exponentially.

I’m with average idiot in terms of funnelling as little money as possible into the government, which has shown poor ability to manage or deliver anything, and of minimizing any “rights” that could result in a spiral of unpredictable costs for government.



We will all be doing that in a socialized medicine model….



Does this control for factors like obesity, sedentary lifestyles, consumption of processed foods, drug addiction, etc? You can’t do whatever you want, ignore obvious risk factors, and then hope for the competitive outcomes.

To your last question I have seen studies that do. And with obesity and sedentary lifestyles spreading through the world, Americans are no longer the outlier. Not to mention that some countries (UK cough) have higher prevalence of alcoholism, Scotland has the highest drug deaths per capita and Australia the highest cocaine use. So it’s not lifestyle driving the differential.

Remember our system is set up against preventive care. We wait til someone actually has the heart attack or cancer and then spend tons of money to fix them. Single-payer systems that require or encourage free regular checkups save both lives and money. That’s especially true for women’s health where we are alarmingly worse than most developed countries: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...womens-health-us-compared-ten-other-countries

 

[Vagabond]

Socialized medicine won’t succeed in the US because the majority of the population realizes that they’ll be paying more for less, with the benefits going disproportionately to “have nots.” It’s the same reason that public transit and other infrastructure lags behind. People don’t want to pay more for others when their own needs are met. And they sure as heck don’t want to give up their own benefits AND pay more.ther

I think most people in the United States understand that, as members of society as a whole, they do benefit from taxation for things that do not immediately affect them, e.g., property taxes for public schools, even when the taxpayer has no children. Whether they believe that the amount they have to pay is reasonable is another matter.

I suppose that there are many people here who apply a different standard to paying taxes to fund health insurance (or even healthcare itself), but then again, there must have been many Americans who felt similarly about free public schools two hundred or more years ago. I note that opposition to Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act has diminished over time. I would expect a similar change of mind if "socialized medicine" were put into place.

 

[PRlady]

I think most people in the United States understand that, as members of society as a whole, they do benefit from taxation for things that do not immediately affect them, e.g., property taxes for public schools, even when the taxpayer has no children. Whether they believe that the amount they have to pay is reasonable is another matter.

I suppose that there are many people here who apply a different standard to paying taxes to fund health insurance (or even healthcare itself), but then again, there must have been many Americans who felt similarly about free public schools two hundred or more years ago. I note that opposition to Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act has diminished over time. I would expect a similar change of mind if "socialized medicine" were put into place.

The states that did not enlarge Medicaid under ACA have demonstrably worse health outcomes. I never understand the desire of right-wingers to kill off their own constituents.

 

[once_upon]

I've only needed fire department services once in my life (knocks on wood, I don't again), paramedics twice (again knocks on wood), and police services three times in my 71 years.

Should I say the taxes which go to those services are unfair compared to people who use them constantly?

I think most people realize they will need supplemental insurance policies - at least those who currently get coverage through employers. But insurance for all will give a basic access to health care.

 

[BittyBug]

Maybe average idiot realizes that public systems won’t cover what their private insurance does, or with the same ease.

Maybe average idiot also realizes that pretty soon they’ll be paying all of those taxes and some type of private insurance, as happens in many countries with socialized medicine.

And maybe average idiot realizes that once society establishes this obligation, we’ll all have to pay for it, even if that means taxes continuing to rise exponentially.

I’m with average idiot in terms of funnelling as little money as possible into the government, which has shown poor ability to manage or deliver anything, and of minimizing any “rights” that could result in a spiral of unpredictable costs for government.

Socialized medicine won’t succeed in the US because the majority of the population realizes that they’ll be paying more for less, with the benefits going disproportionately to “have nots.” It’s the same reason that public transit and other infrastructure lags behind. People don’t want to pay more for others when their own needs are met. And they sure as heck don’t want to give up their own benefits AND pay more.

We will all be doing that in a socialized medicine model….

Does this control for factors like obesity, sedentary lifestyles, consumption of processed foods, drug addiction, etc? You can’t do whatever you want, ignore obvious risk factors, and then hope for the competitive outcomes.

Why do you assume this when it is not the case for any other country? The per capita cost of healthcare in the U.S. is significantly higher than any other developed nation, yet we have worse outcomes. It's more than triple what Italy spends, yet the quality of Italy's healthcare is rated #17 globally while the U.S. system is rated #69. https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

You can look at other metrics and the same disparity exists - the U.S. pays more for poorer outcomes.

How does the quality of the U.S. health system compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Across a wide variety of measures of quality, the U.S. health system appears to perform worse than peer nations on more indicators than it does better. Across a wide variety of measures of quality, the U.S. health system appears to perform worse than peer nations on more indicators than it does...

www.healthsystemtracker.org

And it's not a choice between healthcare delivered by the government - I don't think that would ever fly here, nor should it - and our current system, but rather healthcare insurance delivered by private, for-profit companies vs. a single payer Medicare for all model. And yes, like most other countries, people would still have the option to buy supplemental insurance, but that would still be cheaper than our current system for myriad reasons, not the least of which is the incredibly wasteful redundancy that exists today by having employers in the middle of health insurance.

How much money is wasted year in and year out by companies hiring expensive consultants to try to bend the cost curve, conducting RFPs to shop around insurance carriers, communicating benefits and administering enrollment, etc. etc. - all overhead that is only necessary because of our ridiculous individual model? And every state runs its own exchange for those who aren't covered at work, another ridiculously redundant structure.

How is it that every other developed nation manages to do better than the U.S.?

 

[Private Citizen]

Remember our system is set up against preventive care. We wait til someone actually has the heart attack or cancer and then spend tons of money to fix them. Single-payer systems that require or encourage free regular checkups save both lives and money.

Sources for this?

The US encourages too much preventive care, e.g., annual physicals, that take up a lot of doctor time, generate billable hours, and yet have little correlation to health outcomes.

My only experience with single payer is the NHS, but there’s near-zero preventive care, even if you want it. The system is set up to treat illness, not health. The example you face of the heart attack etc is the NHS. It was never my experience in 35 years of US healthcare with various insurers.

Why do you assume this when it is not the case for any other country? The per capita cost of healthcare in the U.S. is significantly higher than any other developed nation, yet we have worse outcomes. It's more than triple what Italy spends, yet the quality of Italy's healthcare is rated #17 globally while the U.S. system is rated #69. https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/

And what’s the per capita income of the US versus Italy? Also significantly higher (215% to be precise). The differences evaporate once you adjust for this and other factors.

How is it that every other developed nation manages to do better than the U.S.?

I disagree with this, but do think the system needs massive deregulation, strict limits on liability, and federal laws and guidelines on competition, price transparency, and interoperability of systems.

 

[PRlady]

Sources for this?

What drives health spending in the U.S. compared to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

The U.S. spends more on healthcare per capita than its peers. Most of the additional health spending goes to providers for inpatient and outpatient care.

www.healthsystemtracker.org

Proactive Health: The Shift Towards Preventative Healthcare

Preventive medicine aims to reduce the risks of injury and disease through various primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention measures.

www.news-medical.net

We go to the doctor LESS frequently than other developed countries already, certainly because of cost:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022

The US encourages too much preventive care, e.g., annual physicals, that take up a lot of doctor time, generate billable hours, and yet have little correlation to health outcomes.

Just not so. Poor people get very little preventative care because you don’t go to a doctor you can’t afford unless you’re already feeling quite lousy.

 

[genevieve]

Another example of collective stupidity. What difference does it make how the money comes of your paycheck?

Door #1: Lower taxes but relatively health insurance premium and overall lower net pay
Door #2: Higher taxes but overall higher net pay

A popular meme making the rounds once again makes a similar point - that people are paying for their insurance no matter what.

Personally, I haven't had health insurance that wasn't 100% covered by my employer in over a decade (although I'm in the nonprofit sector where salaries tend to be lower than for-profit). So a move to socialized medicine would raise my taxes and would not affect my take-home pay (because I highly doubt such a shift would raise salaries, or at least it would take several years).

I still want socialized medicine because it is ridiculous that the US does not have it. And honestly, working for smaller organizations means I usually don't have access to good plans, so I doubt national coverage would be worse

I only bring this up because I think a better argument to get people on board would be pointing out how many people stay in terrible jobs because they are terrified to lose their health coverage. I don't want my health care connected to my employment.

 

[allezfred]

UnitedHealth Hires Defamation Firm Over Social Media Posts (1)

UnitedHealth Group Inc. has hired a prominent defamation law firm to counter what it sees as inaccurate and irresponsible social media posts about the company’s practices.

news.bloomberglaw.com

UHC hiring a lawyer to go after anyone who posts about their healthcare claim being denied.

 

[my little pony]

well that should do wonders for their reputation

 

[sk9tingfan]

UnitedHealth Hires Defamation Firm Over Social Media Posts (1)

UnitedHealth Group Inc. has hired a prominent defamation law firm to counter what it sees as inaccurate and irresponsible social media posts about the company’s practices.

news.bloomberglaw.com

UHC hiring a lawyer to go after anyone who posts about their healthcare claim being denied.

OMG!

 

[genevieve]

UnitedHealth Hires Defamation Firm Over Social Media Posts (1)

UnitedHealth Group Inc. has hired a prominent defamation law firm to counter what it sees as inaccurate and irresponsible social media posts about the company’s practices.

news.bloomberglaw.com

UHC hiring a lawyer to go after anyone who posts about their healthcare claim being denied.

 

[Aceon6]

UnitedHealth Hires Defamation Firm Over Social Media Posts (1)

UnitedHealth Group Inc. has hired a prominent defamation law firm to counter what it sees as inaccurate and irresponsible social media posts about the company’s practices.

news.bloomberglaw.com

UHC hiring a lawyer to go after anyone who posts about their healthcare claim being denied.

No problem. Just post that your claim was denied by Divided Sickness Gang. If they go after you, they recognized themselves.

 

[sk9tingfan]

Buyouts are beginning at United Health Group

LinkedIn Login, Sign in | LinkedIn

Login to LinkedIn to keep in touch with people you know, share ideas, and build your career.

www.linkedin.com

This is likely the wave...

 

[Private Citizen]

This entire thread should probably be moved to PI, but the Justice Department is seeking the death penalty against Mangione.

Loading…

edition.cnn.com

I'm disappointed by this for a number of reasons:
1) I'm against the death penalty, period
2) The prospect of the death penalty may result in the jury being unwilling to (deservedly) convict him on the highest levels of charges against him
3) It's only going to turn him into even more of a martyr among his warped supporters

 

[MacMadame]

This entire thread should probably be moved to PI, but the Justice Department is seeking the death penalty against Mangione.

Loading…

edition.cnn.com

I'm disappointed by this for a number of reasons:
1) I'm against the death penalty, period
2) The prospect of the death penalty may result in the jury being unwilling to (deservedly) convict him on the highest levels of charges against him
3) It's only going to turn him into even more of a martyr among his warped supporters

I agree with all 3 points. Maybe not 2 because too many in this country are into revenge and are bloodthirsty. But it's definitely a possibility.