ADVERTISEMENT

CEO of United Healthcare gunned down in midtown Manhattan

CNN has a story up of people detailing their insurance denials. The one I specifically want to mention is a guy with nodules on his lungs, his doctor wants an MRI to see if it is cancer. Insurance denied it. Lung cancer is very serious and needs caught ASAP. I can understand his frustration, he is an EMT so he has to be aware. The thing is, he is from Colorado. CO was certain insurance in CO couldn't have bad denials. I don't know how this could be anything but. A quick Google suggests regular scans to determine if they are growing or changing shape is SOP .


It would be nice to have a system where the doctor and patient determine treatment, not bean counters.

On the other hand, the article also has a poll by Kaiser, 81% of Americans believe their insurance is doing at least a "good" job.
 
I don't think he is insane. What he did was wrong but he isn't crazy. We have this tendency to label these people as nuts out of hand and that isn't always the case.

From his POV (and unfortunately a greater percentage of the American public than most of us are comfortable with), he had a logical reason to do what he did. The issue is that things have devolved so much that the patina of civilization that the majority of us adhere to is showing cracks. Having an AI set up to deny claims (which can invariably lead to death and greatly reduced quality of life for people) is something that also comes off as grotesque to a bunch of people.

This goes back to an old logic question I have heard proposed w.r.t. the abortion question: If pro-life people believe that abortion is literally murder, why aren't you violently opposing abortion clinics? And the answer to that used to be that taking the life of these people made you no better than them. And for the vast majority of adherents, that logic has held firm. Someone who argued that type of opinion would be shouted down.

In the case of CEO's and corporate big-wigs, there is a narrative that these people are killing and enslaving you to make a buck. That narrative has gotten much easier to push since we have a bunch of people coming up who have a failure to launch and they need someone to blame and honestly can legitimately point to some stuff that does point back at corporations and elites and decisions made the past 30 years and find support for that narrative. It is a bad thing when people on both sides of a political aisle kind of shrug their shoulders (at a minimum) at an "elite" getting gunned down in the street.

I don't think this guy was crazy. I think he logic-ed himself into a bad decision. He didn't off himself afterwards. He didn't try to hide the murder weapon. He kept his manifesto on him. This guy wanted to get caught. He is going to be an anti-hero for a bunch of people, a modern Ted Kaczynski. I said before that we are nipping at the edges of some really bad stuff. Things can teeter back to normal or a flash in the pan event can turn everything into crazy town. We are in dangerous times and have wholly unserious people (all parties) in charge. That is a danger to us all.

Crazy legally, no. Sounds like he had a serious back problem, probably had a botched surgery and then got denied coverage for any further procedures. I've heard of people killing themselves after dealing with chronic back problems. Most would consider suicide a non rational action... But severe chronic pain can send people into some dark places
 
CNN has a story up of people detailing their insurance denials. The one I specifically want to mention is a guy with nodules on his lungs, his doctor wants an MRI to see if it is cancer. Insurance denied it. Lung cancer is very serious and needs caught ASAP. I can understand his frustration, he is an EMT so he has to be aware. The thing is, he is from Colorado. CO was certain insurance in CO couldn't have bad denials. I don't know how this could be anything but. A quick Google suggests regular scans to determine if they are growing or changing shape is SOP .


It would be nice to have a system where the doctor and patient determine treatment, not bean counters.

On the other hand, the article also has a poll by Kaiser, 81% of Americans believe their insurance is doing at least a "good" job.
If a doctor orders something deeming it medically necessary that should be the end of the story. That story is awful.
 
If a doctor orders something deeming it medically necessary that should be the end of the story. That story is awful.

Saw it mentioned here that insurance denials are up 26% since 2016.

 
Saw it mentioned here that insurance denials are up 26% since 2016.

Yeah that’s a lot. And you lose in the meantime. So you get a denial letter for treatment. Request review. Go get your records. Set up a meeting with your Dr to pen a ltr to the carrier. Then wait. Then probably denied again. Then probably some kind of reconsideration where you go find more support, somehow, then submit that, then wait again. Then get denied. Then go find a lawyer. Explain it all. Hope they’ll take the bad faith case. Then litigate. God knows how long. In the interim your shit metastasizes and your hope for care is lost and you’re just hoping to stick it to them so you can leave dough for your family
 
CNN has a story up of people detailing their insurance denials. The one I specifically want to mention is a guy with nodules on his lungs, his doctor wants an MRI to see if it is cancer. Insurance denied it. Lung cancer is very serious and needs caught ASAP. I can understand his frustration, he is an EMT so he has to be aware. The thing is, he is from Colorado. CO was certain insurance in CO couldn't have bad denials. I don't know how this could be anything but. A quick Google suggests regular scans to determine if they are growing or changing shape is SOP .


It would be nice to have a system where the doctor and patient determine treatment, not bean counters.

On the other hand, the article also has a poll by Kaiser, 81% of Americans believe their insurance is doing at least a "good" job.
I find all the media now coming out in the wake of this murder regarding insurance denials, etc. pretty troublesome. Given the timing, I feel a whole lot of people are going to feel this murderer was justified in doing what he did. Some people are already claiming his action single-handedly changed the anesthesia policy of the company.

This is going to incentivize more of these killings. People like Taylor Lorenz, et al. are not only acting morally grotesquely, they are acting very, very irresponsibly.

Here's hoping we aren't facing a recession anytime soon.
 
I find all the media now coming out in the wake of this murder regarding insurance denials, etc. pretty troublesome. Given the timing, I feel a whole lot of people are going to feel this murderer was justified in doing what he did. Some people are already claiming his action single-handedly changed the anesthesia policy of the company.

This is going to incentivize more of these killings. People like Taylor Lorenz, et al. are not only acting morally grotesquely, they are acting very, very irresponsibly.

Here's hoping we aren't facing a recession anytime soon.
On instagram he’s a hero
 
  • Sad
Reactions: BradStevens
The doctor and the patient can determine treatment. Always.

The question here is: who pays for it?
true but

ins co often interject themselves into treatment decisions by outright denying approval or only allowing lesser options.
pts then being forced into a corner just give in

additionally, this comes only after having to jump thru multiple hoops , paperwork and red tape

i fully believe every ins co has a bean counter sitting in a back office somewhere with a calculator saying " if we delay , deny, fvck with this plan/claim by X many days/months then X % of people will just give up

and it just keeps getting worse

i don't know what the answer is
 
true but

ins co often interject themselves into treatment decisions by outright denying approval or only allowing lesser options.
pts then being forced into a corner just give in

additionally, this comes only after having to jump thru multiple hoops , paperwork and red tape

i fully believe every ins co has a bean counter sitting in a back office somewhere with a calculator saying " if we delay , deny, fvck with this plan/claim by X many days/months then X % of people will just give up

and it just keeps getting worse

i don't know what the answer is
They do have those people and have that policy, which is illegal in many states. If it's not, pass explicit laws making it so.

But then we need enforcement. State AGs could do this, but they are typically headed by stupid politicians who also accept campaign contributions and want higher office. Most state AGs are feckless.

So we've turned over the enforcement responsibility to the private sector. That's people like me. But we work on contingency and these cases are expensive and difficult and insurers do the same thing in court (deny, delay, etc.) that they do to policies. They and their lawyers are very good at it. And judges, by and large, let them get away with it, dismiss cases, deny class cert, etc.

Of course, when and if a lawyer actually succeeds, then people complain about the fee he gets.

So one easy (in terms of getting it done) answer is: pass procedural laws that allow easy class certification, easy access to discovery, and confirms easy pleading rules (they actually already exist but judges don't follow these last ones very often). Turn the contingent fee bar loose on them. You'll get what you want--but it will cost you and everyone else, because premiums will be higher. This solution would allow you to keep the profit motive in the healthcare insurance industry if you think that is of paramount importance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dr.jb
CNN has a story up of people detailing their insurance denials. The one I specifically want to mention is a guy with nodules on his lungs, his doctor wants an MRI to see if it is cancer. Insurance denied it. Lung cancer is very serious and needs caught ASAP. I can understand his frustration, he is an EMT so he has to be aware. The thing is, he is from Colorado. CO was certain insurance in CO couldn't have bad denials. I don't know how this could be anything but. A quick Google suggests regular scans to determine if they are growing or changing shape is SOP .


It would be nice to have a system where the doctor and patient determine treatment, not bean counters.

On the other hand, the article also has a poll by Kaiser, 81% of Americans believe their insurance is doing at least a "good" job.
…but death panels
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UncleMark
They do have those people and have that policy, which is illegal in many states. If it's not, pass explicit laws making it so.

But then we need enforcement. State AGs could do this, but they are typically headed by stupid politicians who also accept campaign contributions and want higher office. Most state AGs are feckless.

So we've turned over the enforcement responsibility to the private sector. That's people like me. But we work on contingency and these cases are expensive and difficult and insurers do the same thing in court (deny, delay, etc.) that they do to policies. They and their lawyers are very good at it. And judges, by and large, let them get away with it, dismiss cases, deny class cert, etc.

Of course, when and if a lawyer actually succeeds, then people complain about the fee he gets.

So one easy (in terms of getting it done) answer is: pass procedural laws that allow easy class certification, easy access to discovery, and confirms easy pleading rules (they actually already exist but judges don't follow these last ones very often). Turn the contingent fee bar loose on them. You'll get what you want--but it will cost you and everyone else, because premiums will be higher. This solution would allow you to keep the profit motive in the healthcare insurance industry if you think that is of paramount importance.

They have laws, I've posted this one before:


It is hard to write a loophole-free law. These companies have very good lawyers to find said loopholes.

Denials are supposed to be signed off on by a doctor at the insurance companies. There are doctors out there signing off on tens of thousands. In other words, an algorithm is doing it. Not what the law is. The article below has a former doctor at Cigna saying it takes 10 seconds to sign off on 50.

 
Left vs. Right? Socialists vs. Patriots?
Bitcoiners vs The World

free freedom GIF
 
They have laws, I've posted this one before:


It is hard to write a loophole-free law. These companies have very good lawyers to find said loopholes.

Denials are supposed to be signed off on by a doctor at the insurance companies. There are doctors out there signing off on tens of thousands. In other words, an algorithm is doing it. Not what the law is. The article below has a former doctor at Cigna saying it takes 10 seconds to sign off on 50.


Oh yeah.....

I'm
familiar with that...

Routinely had some failed cardiologist in PA denying oncology therapies that he most likely knew little or nothing about..., in the evident hope that I wouldn't appeal his findings...

I always did (appeal) and always won... It was an exercise in frustration initially however...

I'm just blessed he wasn't able to "time me out" which may very well have been the plan (I've become a bit of a cynic in my old age),,,
 
They do have those people and have that policy, which is illegal in many states. If it's not, pass explicit laws making it so.

But then we need enforcement. State AGs could do this, but they are typically headed by stupid politicians who also accept campaign contributions and want higher office. Most state AGs are feckless.

So we've turned over the enforcement responsibility to the private sector. That's people like me. But we work on contingency and these cases are expensive and difficult and insurers do the same thing in court (deny, delay, etc.) that they do to policies. They and their lawyers are very good at it. And judges, by and large, let them get away with it, dismiss cases, deny class cert, etc.

Of course, when and if a lawyer actually succeeds, then people complain about the fee he gets.

So one easy (in terms of getting it done) answer is: pass procedural laws that allow easy class certification, easy access to discovery, and confirms easy pleading rules (they actually already exist but judges don't follow these last ones very often). Turn the contingent fee bar loose on them. You'll get what you want--but it will cost you and everyone else, because premiums will be higher. This solution would allow you to keep the profit motive in the healthcare insurance industry if you think that is of paramount importance.
i was younger i think i'd just say fvck it and go cash only

be like doc adams on gunsmoke.......take a couple chickens, apple pie or whatever
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT